- Original Message -
From: "Matthew Bramble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Looks like we have some very nice feature in the works to look forward to
(thanks Scott!).
> It follows that it would be more difficult to
> parse/search for weight:
>
> Message failed IPLINKED test (line 189, weight 7)
The MINWEIGHT option will be added, too. :)
EXCELENT!!! Thanks again. It should be easy to modify the filters to
work more effectively under the new features, and my eye strain will
subside with the addition of weights in the headers and logs.
BTW, another thought...because some of us parse
I mentioned the minimum score choice because while most of what we do is
looking for ways to add points, sometimes we also want to subtract them in
order to give credit, or alternatively, we sometimes don't want to
subtract more than a certain number of points. So for the completeness of
opti
Scott,
Elaborating is my favorite pastime :)
I mentioned the minimum score choice because while most of what we do is
looking for ways to add points, sometimes we also want to subtract them
in order to give credit, or alternatively, we sometimes don't want to
subtract more than a certain numbe
Please note the minimum score in addition to the maximum one (I'm not sure
if you got that, though it's not nearly as important).
I did see that -- could you elaborate on that one a bit?
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam soluti
Scott,
EXCELENT!!!
Please note the minimum score in addition to the maximum one (I'm not
sure if you got that, though it's not nearly as important).
Thanks a bunch,
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
As I continue to look for new potential in filtering, I have
repeatedly come across some limitat
> (IE if you have "MAXWEIGHT 60", and the filter is at 55 points with
> a line that would add 10 points, processing would stop with a weight
> of 60, not 65).
Sounds like any negative weighting must be frontloaded in the filter
file, then?
That is correct.
> (IE if you have "MAXWEIGHT 60", and the filter is at 55 points with
> a line that would add 10 points, processing would stop with a weight
> of 60, not 65).
Sounds like any negative weighting must be frontloaded in the filter
file, then?
-Sandy
Sanford
Thank you Scott -
Thank you Matt -
-Nick Hayer
Date sent: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:43:56 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Reques
THANK YOU Scott!
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.
> Scott Perry
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Request for additional
> filtering func
: [Declude.JunkMail] Request for additional filtering
functionality
>As I continue to look for new potential in filtering, I have repeatedly
>come across some limitations which restrict what can be done
>effectively, difficulty in figuring the scoring of some variable
>filters, and challen
As I continue to look for new potential in filtering, I have repeatedly
come across some limitations which restrict what can be done effectively,
difficulty in figuring the scoring of some variable filters, and
challenges from the additional processing power required to counterbalance
some fil
Bramble
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Request for additional filtering functionality
Scott,
As I continue to look for new potential in filtering, I have repeatedly come
across some limitations which restrict what can be done effectively,
d
Scott,
As I continue to look for new potential in filtering, I have repeatedly
come across some limitations which restrict what can be done
effectively, difficulty in figuring the scoring of some variable
filters, and challenges from the additional processing power required to
counterbalance s
14 matches
Mail list logo
