On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 16:37 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 12-Sep-2009, at 10:27, Clunk Werclick wrote:
> > I disagree. It can do as much harm as good. My own view and  
> > observation
> > from the past have rendered it pointless in my context. It adds  
> > latency,
> > is easily poisoned and rarely makes much difference to the score. I do
> > appreciate some people like it, but my own view is spam has moved on
> > beyond the point of it being useful.
> 
> Facts? we don't need no pesky facts. You are very misinformed.
Myself, I've seen some very poor Bayesian databases where users have
been allowed to categorize mail as spam-v-ham. One company who deal with
Pharmaceuticals for famine relief in Uganda and other poor African
countries found bayes to mess with their core mail to a point that made
it worthless in their context.

It really comes down to the context and effort -v- the return.
> > No thanks, I'll pass on that. In this specific case it still would not
> > have increased the score to a point where the clock cycles made it  
> > worth
> > it.
> 
> The Bayes score ALONE would have pushed this over the spam threshold  
> on my machine.
My point is the content of that mail, which has been circulating for
weeks almost unchanged, really should bite on a core rule, not rely on
plugins and bayes to catch it.

<tangent>Interestingly, It is fair to say that Jari's follow up *did*
show Bayes giving it 5 points. This was then destroyed by AWL dropping
4.1 off of it:

5.0 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
-4.1 AWL: From: address is in the auto  machine.</tangent>

I've created a custom meta rule; I'm almost sorry I came here and asked.
Some of the people here on this list are just so rude, and you sir, are
an Arsehole!

> 

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
C Werclick .Lot
Technical incompetent
Loyal Order Of The Teapot.

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only to be used as an e-mail
and an attachment. Any use of it for other purposes other than as an
e-mail and an attachment will not be covered by any warranty that may or
may not form part of this e-mail and attachment. 



Reply via email to