Carroll Grigsby wrote:
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?
Around Christmas time? Probably almost everyone who has friends with
a digital camera and children... Actually those will usually be
jpegs but you are also likely to get letters with some embedded
festive gifs from people other than advertisers. Of course if you
reject all your email without reading it you might not have any
friends...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
