On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 01:25:46AM +0800, W B Hacker wrote: > 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?
If a user decides a piece of mail is spam, it's spam (if they change their decision then obviously the most recent decision holds). A piece of mail is not spam if a filter thinks it's spam -- only if the recipient thinks it's spam. The filter's decision cannot be correct if it differs from the user's. -- ``The fishy glitter in his eye became intensified. He looked like a halibut which had been asked by another halibut to lend it a couple of quid till next Wednesday.'' (P G Wodehouse) -- ## 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/
