Quoting Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
At 02:32 PM 8/6/2004, Jim Maul wrote:So now i guess my question is. How can i prevent this type of thing in the
future? I dont want a message that hits a mess of other positive rules to be
autolearned. Im afraid ham messages of this spammy nature are going to
influence my bayes database in a negative way.
What's so spammy about the message that bayes will notice? clearly the INVALID_MSGID is irrelevant here, and that's the only thing you can point out that's even remotely "spammy" about the message.
Well defining "spammy" is difficult to do. Honestly, i was basing "spammy" solely on my perception of the message. Looks kinda "spammy" to me. However, there are other rules that i did not mention, INVALID_MSGID was not the only one.
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=CLICK_BELOW,DEAR_SOMETHING,
HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_WEB_BUGS,INVALID_MSGID,
RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED autolearn=ham version=2.63
What i was concerned with was things like click below, dear something, html messages, web bugs, etc getting into bayes as ham. Im not saying the message isnt ham, i just dont want bayes getting confused.
Quite frankly, I use fool's mailing lists as part of my forced-training on ham. Every day I pump their messages into my ham training as a part of an automated cron job. I do the same for CNN and several other news sites that my users use.
(that said, I've not seen any of the fool messages trigger INVALID_MSGID on my system)
I think you're being massively over-paranoid. Bayes isn't poisoned so easily, and quite frankly, the message IS nonspam and IS very typical of real-world html newsletters sent out by legitimate companies all the time.
If SA's bayes engine would be so radically upset by real-world email, it wouldn't work at all well. It's actually important to feed your bayes DB "spammy ham", otherwise your bayes database is not going to work very well when it comes to distinguishing such subtleties.
So i guess i'll shut up and let it do its thing :)
Thanks,
Jim
