|
|
So my name has been spoken, and so I appear.
We appreciate a heads up on this one. Kevin is always careful about looking out for duped votes, but he'll be extra diligent on this one. No false winners will be awarded.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Well I have given my vote to that article (among other articles)... and I am not puppet
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spam[^] mer[^]
while (true) {
continue;
}
modified 13-Jul-15 16:20pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gone
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gone
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you put the words they are using e.g. iPhone erasing software in your message, are you not making the filters jobs a lot harder? i.e. now they have two messages with that phrase in, 1 good, 1 bad?
Just wondering...
|
|
|
|
|
That's where the summary info for the auto spam detector comes in handy! It lets you pick the phrase without hitting the "targets" the heuristics used to spot it.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I think you miss the point.
The idea is you shouldn't have to manually decide if a message is spam or not, the filters should do it.
|
|
|
|
|
No, the idea is that we act as a "override" - allowing messages the filter thinks are spam through without letting the dross in as well.
The hamsters tried a "fully automated system" last year IIRC and it wouldn't let anything into the lounge!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|