On 12/05/07, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> I suppose you could craft a message that was
arguably on-topic and
> also very likely to be eaten by the spam filter, in which case it
> would deserve to be eaten. And if you tended to do that sort of thing
> inadvertently, you'd probably be used to having your mail eaten ;-p
Right. :-) But I did mean my mail in all (or mostly)
seriousness that
there could be a legitimate mail that would trigger the spam filter. I
was wondering where the line was - though I suppose an answer to my
mail might lend itself towards trollspam. ;-)
With Bayesian filtering on the message body, the sort of mail from
humans that I've seen get eaten by Thunderbird is messages from IT
recruiters, who seem to write spam natively. GMail eats stuff from
Wine-Users, presumably because it talks about the same Windows
software that shows up advertised in spam.
The stuff eaten by the new spam rule is usually losing big on rules
such as "sent from RBL-listed server", "sent directly from dialup" or
"blatantly lies when telling me who it is" as well as Bayesian
filtering on the message body.
- d.