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

--On 9 November 2006 17:28:07 +0000 Chris Lightfoot <chris@???>
wrote:

> 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).

Ah, well by this definition, a human can never make a wrong decision, just
a decision that they might later revise.

--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex