>...
>
>Loren Wilton wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I've been running that rule [checking for middle initial in
>> "From"] since before it was mentioned on the list, and it is still
>> moderately useful. It does hit ham, but at one point or however I
>> have it scored that isn't significant. On the other hand, that point
>> has more than once pushed a spam over the limit.
>>
>> One has to remember that its ok for some tests to hit ham, as long as
>> they don't result in an FP.
>
>The same would be true of a rule that checked to see whether the sender
>had a ".com" address. It would hit a great deal of spam, and giving it
>a small score would push a lot of spam messages over the threshold. It
>would also hit a lot of ham, but the additional score wouldn't seem
>significant.
>
>The problem is that once you have a several of those less-discriminating
>rules, the likelihood that more than one will hit on a ham message goes
>up, and you get false positives.
>
>--
>Keith C. Ivey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Washington, DC
>
Now, ".com" isn;t a good disciminator, but there is a rule in the
standard distribution for ".biz" - and I do operate a few ".biz" domains.
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
