> -----Original Message----- > From: --[ UxBoD ]-- [mailto:ux...@splatnix.net] > Sent: Monday, 14 September 2009 11:27 p.m. > To: Matus UHLAR - fantomas > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Non scoring 'Bank Deposit' spam > > ----- "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" <uh...@fantomas.sk> 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. > | > > > | > > > On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 16:37 -0600, LuKreme wrote: > | > > > > Facts? we don't need no pesky facts. You are very > | misinformed. > | > > > | > > On 14.09.09 08:48, Clunk Werclick wrote: > | > > > 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. > | > | > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 11:46 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > | > > I would say that is a result of badly trained BAYES, not fgrom > its > | bad > | > > design. > | > | On 14.09.09 12:06, Clunk Werclick wrote: > | > The *issue* with bayes is it *can* have user input. Would you trust > | your > | > users influencing system wide policy? > | > | That only happens if you allow your users to train system-wide BAYES. > | However this is usually also called "misconfiguration" - in common > | situations either users have their own bayes databases, or they can't > | train > | the site-wide one. > | > | > > If you insist on not using bayes, just because it can be > | mistrained, > | > > better don't use any configurable software, because _everything_ > | > > configurable will go wrong if miscongured. > | > | > I've already stated I'll try it. So read the fucking follow up > | before > | > shouting your thick foreign mouth off you stupid cunt! > | > | I have read your previous posts, I only wanted to react on some of > | your > | "arguments".
> I would post the private email I received from Clunk but I will not > lower myself or expose the list to such vulgarity. > Why not? Everyone else seems to be able to get away with it! M.
