On 02.02.10 11:47, Kārlis Repsons wrote: > in fact, all spam filters are normally designed with an intent to get rid > of spam, not ham, but anyway, I'm confused with my possible chances to > miss some mails for no really valid reason.
_any_ spam filter can have false positives. If there was spam filter that would have no false positives (and would block all spam), there would be no spam anymore. If it would not hit any spam, all spammers would change their spam not to hit that one. > I've seen that long list in [1], but that doesn't say much of what should > be avoided. For example, I remember somewhere it was said, that SpamCop > may be "too aggressive". Spamcop is perfectly good, if properly used. and I think it's perfect even at SMTP time... > So, how should I understand better what to avoid in what cases? (I'd rather > leave out some dangerous tests and train Bayes filter) training bayes filter should help you much. If you notice any false positives, you can use whitelisting ot increasing the required score. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [email protected] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
