[Spambayes] full o' spaces

[Meyer, Tony]

> this is not at all to say 
> that this will be the case here but as new ideas are bandied 
> about, i posit that it is a good idea to make sure that 
> previously discarded methodologies be reexamined periodically.

I would absolutely agree with this.  To grab the box for a minute and add my 2c to the discussion about being reactive or proactive:

I think that we should be as proactive as possible in trying to find new ways to tag mail that distinguish spam & ham - like the bytes/word count, and so on.  But I don't think these should be checked in, unless they do demonstrate that they make a difference.  The important thing is to code them, and test them, and note those tests & code so that later on, (when, for example, white space spam is really common), we can be as quickly reactive as possible, just grabbing code from the archive, re-testing it and deploying it.

Along with this, it would be great if every now and then, some of these rejected ideas were retested against with the current code and current ham/spam.  Plus, of course, testing the odd idea that is in the code that might not still need to be there.

Just my thoughts...

=Tony Meyer