On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:29:59 +0000, Duncan wrote: > Jim Henderson <hende...@gmail.com> posted > gi6658$mu...@ger.gmane.org, excerpted below, on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 > 18:03:21 +0000: > >> Could be, or it could be that they had a problem with a spammer using >> pan and blocked it using the postfilter - though usually, the spambots >> use custom software that helpfully identifies itself as such. > > Well, that he can do original posts and initial followups, just not > "deep" followups, doesn't seem to jive with the spammer idea too well. > If it was that I'd think they'd kill posting entirely with pan. > > That's why I'm leaning toward the bayesian thing. Something that pan is > hitting more or less as a completely unintended side effect. Of course, > if a spammer is using pan and the bayesian filter is keying in on > that... then a single occurrence might not increase the score enough to > kill the post, while multiple occurrences do.
Yeah, I'd agree it's probably an unintended side effect - I know my thought doesn't jive with normal thought processes, but IME ISP thought processes aren't always "normal". ;-) > BTW, I still have a long post on the thread to go thru and reply to... > Real life, etc... getting in the way. I know that feeling. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
