On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Chris Santerre wrote: > > but you'd still have to call the eval multiple times in order to give > > different scores based on true/false return values from your eval... > > i can write this eval for you in just a few minutes if that guy doesnt > > want to make it available. > > dallas > Agreed! That was his biggest complaint. One of the things we learned was it > depends on the size of the email. We had to look at how many times a phrase > hit and was the email big(or small) enough to justify it might indicate > spam.
If there is still room for 'requests' in this process, I'd still like to ask for a bit more 'manual' control: Ie. some 'count' tests could be absolute while others would be nice to proportion to the size of the e-mail. How many people will b*r*e*a*k u*p more than four or five words, regardless of the size of the mail. Now that I think about it, using a size parameter will just be an excuse to have spammers pad out their mail to make them bigger. (sigh) Hope these comments help..... - Charles ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
