From: Tony Williams 

Geo. wrote:
> "Tony Williams"  wrote in message
> news:3dfe4a47{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>
>>Semi-automatically might be a better way to describe it. I have lots of
>>filters to categorise mail and send it to different folders, so I don't
>>see spam mixed up with the rest. I'm not saying that my ISP shouldn't
>>block spam, just that I like having a second string to my bow.
>
>
> So it's sort of "we're sure this is spam so bounce it" and
"we think this is
> spam so tag it"?

That's what I'd like to see. I don't know if we have any address ranges
blocked outright. I only get about 10-20 spams a day though - I expect if
the volume picked up I'd be in favour of changing the ratio of tagging to
blocking.

>
>>control. Incidentally, the new mail client in OS X 10.2 has a filter
>>which is doing quite a good job at sending spam to a
"junk" folder for
>>me. If it makes a mistake I tell it that it either tagged something it
>>shouldn't have or missed a spam which it should be moving to junk. It
>>seems to be learning quite quickly.
>
>
> I wonder if they are using something similar to the animals program logic to
> do that? Does it have rules you can edit or does it encode the rules
> directly into the filter program?

Something about Bayesian statistics, I believe. Not something I know much about.

--
Tony

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4