Re: [exim] DynaStop - It works for me.

On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 01:25:46AM +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
> Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 04:39:21PM +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> >> Well, I think that there are spam filters that are more reliable than
> >> humans at detecting spam. That is; the spam filters get fewer false
> >> positives.
> >
> > That's obviously not possible.
> >
>
> Au Contraire.
>
> Have you never discarded a piece of snail-mail basd on the look of the envelope
> - only to find out later that what you thought was junk was actually something
> important? Nor opened a letter that 'looked right' - then found it obviously
> otherwise?

If a user decides a piece of mail is spam, it's spam (if
they change their decision then obviously the most recent
decision holds). A piece of mail is not spam if a filter
thinks it's spam -- only if the recipient thinks it's
spam. The filter's decision cannot be correct if it
differs from the user's.

--
``The fishy glitter in his eye became intensified. He looked like
a halibut which had been asked by another halibut to lend it a
couple of quid till next Wednesday.'' (P G Wodehouse)