Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That was my first thought as well, but then you need to do it for each > drug or each word that might be "stuck-keyed". However, when I checked > my Bayes db, I found lots of words like these: > >> answeeeer >> emaaaail >> [...]
Yeah, but that's why Bayes works. By trying to evade using ordinary words, the spammer makes it only worse for themselves! I think looking for just the product words is enough. > So... this would turn into a never-ending reactive "whack-a-mole" job. > And, also, when looking at the original message, I noticed that the > sender asked for a "generic" rule that did it..... Sure, but nobody asked him to show the original spam. It's kinda silly to devote a lot of time writing rules without knowing more, starting with whether the spam was missed at all. Maybe it was missed, but was he using Bayes? Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
