--On 9 November 2006 17:28:07 +0000 Chris Lightfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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). Ah, well by this definition, a human can never make a wrong decision, just a decision that they might later revise. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex -- ## 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/
