From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Autolearn is a good thing, but how much manual training are you doing?
>
> Autolearning alone as your sole source of bayes training is a very bad
> idea, and prone to disaster.
>
> I might also suggest the following to help mitigate some of the habeas
damage:
>
> bayes_ignore_header X-Habeas-SWE-1
> bayes_ignore_header X-Habeas-SWE-2
> bayes_ignore_header X-Habeas-SWE-3
> bayes_ignore_header X-Habeas-SWE-4
> bayes_ignore_header X-Habeas-SWE-5
> bayes_ignore_header X-Habeas-SWE-6
> bayes_ignore_header X-Habeas-SWE-7
> bayes_ignore_header X-Habeas-SWE-8
> bayes_ignore_header X-Habeas-SWE-9
>
> This will make the bayes database never give ham nor spam points because
an
> email has these headers.. since there's already a rule for them, there's
no
> reason to give "double credit" and give them bayes consideration as well.
Er, I take it as a given that the X-Habeas headers are prime indicators
of spam. So what's wrong with scoring them twice? How does Granny Pratfall
install X-Habeas headers on her Outlook Express email? It's hard for her.
It's easy for spammers. Relayed spams leave spammers virtually immune to
any of the Habeas sanctions. So it's cheaper for spammers to use that
header than it is for most computer users out there.
Score it twice. Score it thrice. Score it whatever. The truth of the header
will eventually fall out of the mishmash.
{^_^}
