Tony Meyer wrote: > X-Spambayes-Classification: ham; 0.048 > X-Spambayes-Evidence: '*H*': 0.90; '*S*': 0.00; 'bug.': 0.07; 'flagged': 0.07; > "i'd": 0.08; 'bayes': 0.09; 'from:addr:ihug.co.nz': 0.09; > 'really,': 0.09; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.14; > 'from:addr:t-meyer': 0.16; 'from:name:tony meyer': 0.16; > 'obvious,': 0.16; 'spambayes': 0.16; 'subject:Guido': 0.16; > 'trolling,': 0.16; 'regret': 0.82; 'lee,': 0.91; 'viagra': 0.91; > 'mailings': 0.93; 'probability': 0.93 > This is a feature, not a bug. It's the same feature that means that > messages talking about spam on the spambayes mailing list, or the > legitimate mail I get about viagra <wink>, get through to me. True. However, most mail to this mailinglist has less than 0.001 spam probability. As you can see, this one had 0.048 - a vast score, almost enough to put it in my unsure box. It seems to be just not hammy enough. It's interesting to see that no none of the foul language words used by Xah Lee ever occurs in any spam I receive - spam is not that stupid. Gerrit. -- Temperature in Luleå, Norrbotten, Sweden: | Current temperature 05-09-30 12:49:54 11.1 degrees Celsius ( 51.9F) | -- Det finns inte dåligt väder, bara dåliga kläder.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4