Anybody know what spam detection program is producing this absurd result, so I can make sure I never even think about using it? It's the second such email in two (or possibly three) days.
The potential of Bayesian filtering is vastly overstated, but this one has to be a bug or usage error of some sort. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Georg Martius Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 6:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: *****SPAM***** Annotation for unfolding wanted Spam detection software, running on the system "h7568.serverkompetenz.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Tim, thanks for the hint, but I tried this without success. My point is, that I don't want to try a pragma and see whether it works. I would like to specify the requirement that a function has to be in constant space and if it cannot be done, that the program should not compile. Would it be complicated to include in the compiler? [...] Content analysis details: (7.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO 3.0 BAYES_95 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 95 to 99% [score: 0.9674] 1.9 RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL RBL: NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP [87.172.161.188 listed in combined.njabl.org] 2.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [87.172.161.188 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
