The question I have is whether the similarity is mostly in the payload or mostly in the metadata. I welcome clues from any spam-gurus. I also think it depends on the extent to which your filter is crowdsourced, as well. It strikes me that GMail (and such) users have an economy of scale in recognizing spam that offline bayes filterers don't have.
It would be a fun, but maybe cruel prank to play on someone to get all your friends to mark all emails from some poor shlub as spam so that Google users worldwide began sending their emails to spam. On 1/27/21 5:07 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > This whole thread went into my gmail spam folder. > > > Why is this message in spam? > > It is similar to messages that were identified as spam in the past. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
