Hello Darin, Wednesday, June 7, 2006, 5:09:27 PM, you wrote:
<snip/> >>That would be a bad idea, sorry. After 30 days (heck, after 2) spam is >>usually long-since filtered, or dead. As a result, looking at 30 day >>old spam would have a cost, but little benefit. > You misinterpreted what I was saying. I was not at all suggesting sending > old spam. What I was talking about was copying spam@ with spam that does > not fail sniffer _as it comes in_, or _during same day/next day reviews_ Sorry, I did misinterpret then. _as it comes in_ is good, provided the weights are high enough to prevent a lot of FPs. We're all trained pretty well on how to skip those - but the more we see, the more likely we are to slip up ;-) >>What we do use from time to time are virtual spamtraps. In a virtual >>spamtrap scenario, you can submit spam that reached a very high (very >>low false positive) score but did not fail SNF. Generally this is done >>by copying the message to a pop3 account that can be polled by our >>bots. > That is exactly what I was suggesting. We'll put it on our list to write a > filter to do so when time permits. Just trying to help. Thanks very much! _M -- Pete McNeil Chief Scientist, Arm Research Labs, LLC. ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <sniffer@sortmonster.com>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
