> It matches 8% of my ham, and only 6% of my spam.
>
> Bob Menschel
I think that can safely qualify that as a pretty bad rule! It might be
possible to tune it by twiddling the word length values some, but I doubt it
is worth the effort unless nothing better can be found. I don't have the
tools to do corpus checks with my tiny Linux machine, and I doubt that
anyone else would want to waste the hours fiddling with that to try to
improve it.
I *knew* there was a reason I didn't want to put it on my own machine...
:-)
BTW, I seem to be having some luck with a rule that checks for my email
address in the to and cc lists and looks to see if the optional name in
front of it is correct. I only gave this a couple points since it will
obviously fail on all mailing lists, but I still generally end up with a
negative score from bayes or whitelist. And it adds a couple of points to a
whole lot of real spams. Can't really say yet how worthwhile this rule is,
and it is certainly a difficult one to implement without user-specific
rules.
Loren
