On Tuesday 26 December 2006 17:09, jdow wrote:
>>> whack
> Scores. The magic is in scores. No single rule (usually) should be
> allowed to define spam. (BAYES_99 is good enough here I score it
> high enough to guarantee markup as spam. Then I rely on the small
> number of negative scoring rules to save random ham messages that
> might get all the way to 0.99 BAYES spam probability.)
>
> Besides, WTF good is Bayes with image spam?
> {^_^}
Answering a question with a question: When was the last time that anyone
received an email with a GIF image that was _not_ spam?
-- cmg
