On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> BAW> - The filter marks the message with a % confidence of being spam
> BAW> (e.g. X-Spam: 75%)
>
> BAW> - Each Mailman recipient could specify the threshhold above which
> BAW> they do not want to receive the message (e.g. don't sent me
> BAW> anything that's spam with a more than 70% confidence level).
> BAW> This only works for regular delivery.
>
> [Could use re's to match]
>
> I would therefore suggest that the X-Spam header be simply a three-digit
> number in the range 000 to 100. (No percent sign, always with any necessary
> leading zeroes.) It might even be better to create an X-Spam-Value header
> in one-bit arithmetic, e.g. make a slightly smaller range (say 0 to 50) and
> include a header like:
>
> X-Spam-Value: sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
>
> to indicate a 70% likelihood (35 "s"s). You could then match it with
>
> X-Spam-Value: s{25,50}
>
> in procmail to spam-categorize anything with a probability of spamhood >=
> 50%. You could include a readable X-Spam header like:
>
> X-Spam: rated 75% probability of being spam by "Spam Pie v. 0.1"
Um, yick!-) The idea of using a bar-like representation of the assessment
strikes me like suggesting presentation of the info in a graph, and then
screen-scraping to evaluate the graph. Aieee!
How about a spam-estimate of 0-9? Pretty darn easy to match. I wouldn't
imagine the lack of precision is going to be a problem, in this domain...
Or is this all too off-topic?
Ken
klm@digicool.com
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