[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Dirty spam

José Alburquerque <jaalburquerque@cox.net> wrote:

> Pollywog wrote:
> >On Sunday 22 October 2006 15:06, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>    Not directed solely at you, Mumia, just something that I've been
> >>meaning to say for weeks now.  Know what would really help?  If people
> >>would stop replying to spam, quoting spam or otherwise legitimizing spam to
> >>my bayesian filters.  That has to be part of the reason the spam getting
> >>through both of my filters (SA and TB).  I mean do I consider the replies
> >>to spam as ham or spam?  If it's ham then it increases the chances of
> >>false-negatives in the future.  If it's spam then it increases the chances
> >>of false-positives in the future.  Either way I'm screwed and it seems that
> >>every spam to make it through the list is quoted a few times now.  :/
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Sorry, I did not mean to respam the spam.
> >Now I feel as though I need to find a special chewing gum.
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> I'm sorry to ask.  Can you explain what special chewing gum means?

If I'm not mistaken, Pollywog was making an analogy to the special
chewing gums if you want to give up smoking ;)

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)

Reply to: