On Friday 18 August 2006 16:48, Nigel Henry wrote:
>On Friday 18 August 2006 01:55, jdow wrote:
>> From: "Nigel Henry" <cave.dnb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> > I can't say I'm too clued up on the finer points of spam filtering,
>> > but am willing to learn. Ideally spam should be stopped at source,
>> > but I don't suppose there's much chance of that happening.
>
>Joanne writes.
>
>> I can give a data dump.
>
><big snip>
>
>> {^_-} Joanne
>
>Thanks very much for all the info. I'll file it, and work my way through
> it.
>
>Regarding your comment that a bayes filter was not sufficient on it's
> own, I did see a post on this list a while back, where someone was first
> filtering using SA, then followed by a second filtering with a bayes
> filter, which I think was "spambayes" (couldn't find that, but think it
> was supposed to be on sourceforges site). They claimed that what was
> missed by SA was picked up by the second filtering with the bayesian
> filter, and virtually eliminated all the spam.
>
>Open season for hunting spammers sounds like a good idea. Just gotta get
> that one through congress. Perhaps the NRA will support it. In the UK
> they banned fox hunting. Personally I don't think that was a bad thing.
> After all the poor old foxes only stole the odd chicken to survive. Now.
> Replacing that with spammer hunting. Same hounds, trained to detect the
> spammers, using spam samples (not the "Spam" pressed meat). Capture a
> few spammers, set them loose, and then set the hounds after them. Great
> fun.
>
>Nigel.
Now there's a thought. Unforch, the air fare from WV to Merry Olde England
would raise the cost of the hunt into highly uneconomical ranges for this
quasi-retired old fart.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
