Spam in images
tanderso at oac-design.com
Tue Aug 15 14:19:59 EDT 2006
John G Walker wrote:
> Fair point. That's why I insisted that one word should be enough for
> the email message to go through the normal (statistical) routines.
> But the problem is that you can't apply statistical techniques to a
> population of zero size. At the moment, the way things work, a message
> of zero words gets automatically classed as ham. Hence the discussion
> about analysing images.
> What I'm suggesting is that whether a zero-word message is classified
> as ham or spam should be under the control of the user, via an option
> on the command line. The default, to enable backwards compatibility,
> should be ham,
That's simply not true. All emails have dozens of tokens in the header
on which to filter. Having no body text is indicative of nothing.
More information about the Bogofilter