Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 7:10:26 PM: > http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1050 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED > Resolution| |WONTFIX
> ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-30 19:10 ------- > It seems this isn't really an issue... Bayes seems to handle most of these > situations, and it seems like it would provide little gain. I disagree. There are different classes of rules, where we can establish that by the very thing the rule tests for, we're more confident that rule A identifies spam than does rule B. Example: m'[EMAIL PROTECTED]@'/i can be given a much higher confidence level for spam than m'viagra'/i, since normal correspondence could discuss the drug by name, but only spam will use all available obfuscation techniques to try to avoid identification. That said, I have no problem with bug 1050 being closed, since this confidence issue is adequately discussed in bug 3821. Bob Menschel
