Eaxctly. Even if messages suspect of being spam are being put into another folder, the USER must be RESPONSIBLE (for themselves!). Sorry to shout.
Ben On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:34:16 -0800 Cory Petkovsek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:12:13PM -0800, Marc Baber wrote: | > Could anyone on this list explain what "Bayesian spam probability" | > means in the context of SpamAssassin? Some spam filters use locally | > defined filtering rules and some are augmented with remote databases | > of "known" spam messages (such as razor.sf.net). I don't know about | > SpamAssassin. | I assume you understand the gist of a baeysian spam filter, so I won't | explain it. In the context of spam assasin, it auto learns messages | by default. There are certain very low bottom and very high upper | threshholds of spamissity that triggers the baeysian learning. | | > My sense is that current Spam filters operate on the assumption that | > nearly everyone agrees on what is Spam so anything reported by | > anyone as spam is likely to actually be spam. That probably works | > fine up until an election year :-). | | Didn't Roger and Larry say they only tag messages and leave filtering | to the end user? So what's everyone's beef? | _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
