On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 20:00, Chris Santerre wrote: > I see everyone's point, but now I'm just being the devil's advocate. I get > two paychecks that way:
Money well spent I would say! :) [...] > >I can see that signatures can be a problem when using bayes *when > >treating hoaxes as spam* because the same sigs - and therefore the same > >bayes tokens - would appear both in ham and hoaxes(spam in this > >scenario). [a light starts shining!][deletes more questions] > > However you would recieve maybe 100+ emails including this signature from > legit emails. Yet only one hoax including this signiture. So bayes wouldn't > consider the sig a sure spam sign. Not necessarily true! You might receive a hoax from some client/distributor/whatever who doesn't send you that much e-mail but considers this one of the occasions where sending this particular message would benefit you! [...] > Negative rules for sigs? No, but even if you did, how would spammers know > which sigs to use? :) If every company would create a private set of "whiterules" for allowed sigs this would indeed be difficult, but that would require a local admin who know how to write good rules... [...] > So the cost of users deleting files on there system because their freind > told them to "READ THIS RIGHT AWAY!" doesn't cost much? You must pay the > support staff with Canadien money ;) Another argument for using an OS that doesn't allow users to delete system-important files[*cough* *nix] *cough* ], but that's a different discussion... :) [...] > And I HATE cats! My dog uses them as chew toys. > (Oh I'm going to get some fan mail with that one!) > > --Chris [Rule writer for CatAssassin.] So far for world peace! :) Bram -- not much of a cat fan either, cat-fights OTOH... (But saying aloud or in writing on a mailing list wouldn't score me much points... D'Oh!) :) -- # Mertens Bram "M8ram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux User #349737 # # SuSE Linux 8.2 (i586) kernel 2.4.20-4GB i686 256MB RAM # # 8:46pm up 65 days 0:21, 7 users, load average: 0.02, 0.14, 0.09 #
