[Spambayes] Could it get any better than this?

[Tim Peters]

[Skip Montanaro]
> I was scanning incoming spam looking for "received" clues and came
> across this evidence.  It's as if the sender was trying to send me a
> message which would be classified as spam!

Hmm.  If you ever *asked* for a prospectus by email, it would probably get
the same score.  Like

    'bi:skip:f 10 statements': 0.96;

is almost certainly derived from "forward-looking statements", which every
prospectus contains (and not by accident, it's by law).  Likewise for a
great many of the other features listed.

OTOH, every prospectus I ask for in email is delivered either via a link to
a web page, or as a PDF or .doc attachment, so maybe that doesn't matter.
The only prospectus-like stuff I get in plain text seems to be stock-pumping
scam spam.

So maybe it's not scary at all.  It's sure impressive regardless!  Thanks
for sharing it.