From: "Keith Ivey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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.
Whitelists exist. This is what they are for.
{^_^}
