On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
However as you note, you may be able to use the *absence* of a rule
hit as
a ham token. Also, you could add some "informational" rules matching
common innocent traits of nonspam mail, for the purpose of serving
as good
ham rules in this setup.
By the way, we've tried this in the past without good results. But
please
do try; it's quite likely that there are good ways to do this which we
haven't tried.
Also, yes, it would be possible to do this quite easily as a new Check
plugin. Simply subclass the existing one and reimplement the
methods t
The results so far have been very good. But the resources required
to use SpamAssassin and my own filter are more than my current
hardware can manage. It's very small. But perhaps I can get a
cleaner implementation and improve performance.
