Saturday, November 9, 2002, 8:52:35 PM, rick wrote:
> after 2 days it is working quite well. It uses probability instead of
> static filters. Works wonderful so far.
Are you just using it to filter spam? I was interested in replacing
all my bat rules with this, but I don't know how well it would work.
Given that my current filters get 90% of my spam anyway, I'm not sure
it's worth it.
To the original message - I rely solely on filters, and get just a few
spam messages in my inbox. I haven't had any false positives yet, but
I check every few days.
My spam filter is mainly a list of things that almost always occur
with spam: "mortgage" "Valued customer" "\$\d{1,}(\.|,)?\d*" (that
last regexp catches $100 etc. , I seem to get a lot of casino spam)
If spam slips through the net, I look for identifying features to add
to the filter. It works so far, but for people who get a lot of spam
it might not work as well.
Oh, I should say that the rule excludes anyone in my address book. I
considered whitelisting any message that includes my name in the 'to'
header, but can't figure out the best way to do it.
--
Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 on XP Pro
How come abbreviated is such a long word?
________________________________________________
Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
