[Spambayes] x-hammie-disposition in pop3proxy

Tim@mail.powweb.com Tim@mail.powweb.com
Sun Nov 3 12:47:42 2002

I agree.. it was a dumb idea.  Hopefully I've exhausted my quota of those... ;)

- TimS

11/3/2002 1:31:39 AM, Tim Peters <tim.one@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Has there been any thought given to additional classifications,
>> beyond ham|unsure|spam?
>No; you could get "a score" with 17 decimal digits of precision, about 1 of
>which is meangingful,.
>> Like, ham|probablyham|unsure|probablyspam|spam, with
>> corresponding cutoffs specified in Options?  I don't know if
>> that's interesting to anybody at all...
>> I could see X-Spambayes-Classification: probablyspam being useful
>> as a range of mail that should be checked manually...
>That's what Unsure is for.  If you don't check Unsure msgs, you'll be sorry.
>They split about half-and-half between ham and spam for me, and if the
>system *could* have made a better jugmint about them, it would have.
>If you do have the score, we've gotten mixed reports here about whether
>sorting Unsure msgs by score is helpful.  I find that it is in my email, but
>there are many exceptions (ham closer to high end of the Unsure range, and
>spam closer to the low end).
>Spambayes mailing list
- Tim