FW: RE: RE: [Spambayes] Email client integration -- what's
Tue Nov 5 04:19:01 2002
Tim, I don't know why it's doing that. I'm sending from
tim@fourstonesExpressions.com... but it comes out on the list with the
invalid address... Lemme do some more investigation... but it's
probably my stinkin host... forever screwing me up.
Certainly a training class would have helped me get my head around the
training side of things. It's not really a trivial abstraction...
Ok, I'll take a crack at the training class, then... got some ideas,
but could use a few suggestions on some remembering stuff... All we
can really ever count on having is a few basic headers and the message
body. Somehow from whatever we have, we need to create a key that
will be used to find a saved message. I could hash the entire
message, or use a checksum... ideas?
11/4/2002 10:10:32 PM, Tim Peters <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Tim, all msgs to you bounce, with
> Recipient address: Tim@mail.powweb.com
> Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
> Diagnostic code: smtp;550 <Tim@mail.powweb.com>: User unknown
> Remote system: dns;mail.powweb.com (TCP|22.214.171.124|22677|
> 126.96.36.199|25) (mail.powweb.com ESMTP Postfix)
>From: Tim Peters [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:02 PM
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Spambayes] Email client integration -- what's
>> Ok, I'm totally with ya now. Is anyone working on a general
>> training class?
>Not seriously as such, although the Outlook client has steps in that
>direction. I expect people think the retraining steps are too
>factor out, but I think that's a mistake: while the general class
>indeed end up being simple, there are subtleties that should be
>once and for all, and the very existence of a training class will
>next person figure out how to proceed with the next client. The
>Tester and TestDriver classes (esp. the former) have that flavor too:
>existence has driven the creation of concrete test drivers, and
>just enough commonality so that post-test analysis tools have been
>relatively easy to write.
>> If not, I can take a crack at it... The smtpproxy is kinda broken
>> without it, because while it can train, it will need some kind of
>> remembering in order to be able to untrain...
>I think you're in a good position, then. When the client allows
>integration, it seems hard to abstract things enough for easy
>with a nightmare client <0.7 wink>, it should be easier to picture an
>Spambayes mailing list
More information about the Spambayes