Porn msg identification?

[Brian May]

I *NEVER* delete or auto report spam based on a score (unless it;s a spam
trap)...  There will always be a false positive that you wish you never
killed.

But I know there will be the lazy...

----- Original Message -----
From: "G. Armour Van Horn" <vanhorn at whidbey.com>
To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Porn msg identification?


I'll look at it this weekend. I think I can probably ignore the spam vs
high-scoring spam by deleting the high-scoring stuff, which I was already
contemplating. If I don't need a three-way decision, it sounds like your
approach would work.

Van

Kevin Spicer wrote:

> > I'm not sure I trust SA enough to delete messages based on a single
> > SpamCheck
> > code, but if I could give MS a list of codes that would be checked
> > after messages
> > had hit my Spam threshold, I would be just delighted. I.e., if the
> > message is
> > already declared spam, delete rather than re-subject if any of my list
> > of
> > PornCheck codes is present.
>
> I tried something similar a while ago, just as an experiment with custom
> functions.  The principal difference was that I decided to try and
> differentiate hoaxes from ordinary spams.  I think I got it working (but
> I'm not 100% sure - I never got it into production because the number of
> SA rules which suggest hoaxes didn't seem high enough to make it
> reliable).  I've attached my _untested_ code in case its any use to
> you.  DON'T USE IT IN PRODUCTION WITHOUT SERIOUS TESTING!!!
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------
Sign up now for Quotes of the Day, a handful of quotations
on a theme delivered every morning.
Enlightenment! Daily, for free!
mailto:twisted at whidbey.com?subject=Subscribe_QOTD

For web hosting and maintenance,
visit Van's home page: http://www.domainvanhorn.com/van/
----------------------------------------------------------