Chris Lightfoot wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 04:39:21PM +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote: >> Well, I think that there are spam filters that are more reliable than >> humans at detecting spam. That is; the spam filters get fewer false >> positives. > > That's obviously not possible. >
Au Contraire. Have you never discarded a piece of snail-mail basd on the look of the envelope - only to find out later that what you thought was junk was actually something important? Nor opened a letter that 'looked right' - then found it obviously otherwise? Humans are as easily fooled as their machines. More so. We are not as consistent as a 'high speed idiot'. Worse. We get tired. 'high speed idiots' do not. Bill -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
