On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 20:44:11 -0700 Dave Warren wrote: > On 2013-07-06 12:24, Celene wrote: > > To be honest, I have never gotten any emails from people with only a > > URL, unless they are spam, so this shouldn't be a problem. > > While this might work for you personally, I would encourage you to > avoid applying this type of rule in the general case. > > I regularly send emails to people with a link so they can review the > site we're discussing while we're on the phone. Since we're already > on the phone, no additional context is needed, and therefore the > email might not include any. >
This isn't really an argument for not having such a rule, we already have MISSING_SUBJECT (1.8 points) which is a similar sort of thing. The important thing is whether there's a score that improves spam detection without the inevitable rule FPs translating into a significant number of classification FPs. I would suggest that if anyone implements such a rule, it shouldn't overlap with MISSING_SUBJECT, and there should be an attachment test too.
