Aleksander Adamowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Understood, what I wanted to say is that Bayes isn't effective against > this sort of stuff and currently the other SA mechanisms aren't > sufficient to catch this spam.
My point was that the extra words have no effect one way or the other on the Bayes classification. If they hadn't been there, the message would still have slipped through, so it's not appropriate to call the extra words "Bayes poison". People talk about "Bayes poison" a lot, but I have yet to see an example that actually affects Bayes. > This is mainly because HTML.pm can be fooled by dangling attributes. You've lost me there. What do "dangling attributes" have to do with this case? HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN was triggered, so the COLOR attributes were seen. The problem is they weren't recognized as being nearly invisible, so the problem seems to be with the HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST test, not with parsing. -- Keith C. Ivey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Washington, DC
