[Spambayes] Is simple better?

[John Bailo]

On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 10:38, Andrew J. Coutermarsh wrote:
> Yes, but if you do that, you're dramatically increasing the chance of
> getting false positives and false negatives.  You gotta be careful about

can you be more specific?

> doing something like that.
> 
> I have an email address that goes into my current mailbox, but it is almost
> entirely spam now; I would say that less than one tenth of one percent of
> all the email that comes to it is legit.  Why do I still filter it?  Because
> there's still a small chance that I could miss something by either disabling
> the account.
> 
> Andrew J. Coutermarsh
> Prime Resources Corp.
> I.S. Department
> Ph: (203) 331-9100 x3236
> Fx: (203) 551-3324
> andrewc at primeworld.com
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spambayes-bounces at python.org [mailto:spambayes-bounces at python.org] On
> Behalf Of John Bailo
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 1:34 PM
> To: spambayes at python.org
> Subject: [Spambayes] Is simple better?
> 
> 	
> I spent a few hours this weekend to get SpamBayes to work, with
> Evolution on RedHat 9.   I did not succeed.
> 
> But then I picked up an idea from a newsgroup about just creating
> a filter that only allows email with my name in the recipient list
> through to my inbox.
> 
> Now I am filtering 99 percent of my spam with a simple inbox filter.
> 
> less is more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spambayes at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes
> Check the FAQ before asking: http://spambayes.sf.net/faq.html