New version

[Bill McClain]

On 16 Mar 2004 08:15:27 -0500
Tom Anderson <tanderso at oac-design.com> wrote:

> Wow, that sounds incredibly dangerous.  If I sent you an email about a
> subject you've never received before, maybe about igpe atinle, or
> silghlty rareraegnd lteetrs, or lysdexia, or some obscure science or
> sport with a strange vernacular, then you would likely classify it as
> spam.  I'd much rather get it as unsure, and at least have a chance to
> register it as spam once.  Therefore, the robx ought to be less than
> the spam_cutoff if not within the min_dev range.  Biasing unknowns
> strongly toward spam (above the cutoff and min_dev) is crazy IMHO.

No, it works well, for me at least. I receive legitimate mail with new
vocabulary that is classified correctly. Looking at the -vv histogram
distribution, I see it is very difficult for spammers to match the
pattern expected for good mail.

For the past 6280 spams caught, I've had 5 false positives. These were
all acknowledgements from new mailing lists or merchants. Correcting
them once fixed them.

-Bill
-- 
Sattre Press                                The King in Yellow
http://sattre-press.com/                 by Robert W. Chambers
info at sattre-press.com         http://sattre-press.com/kiy.html