From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,103b407e8b68350b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-07 12:38:27 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc02.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tmoran@acm.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: [off-topic] spam-filters
References: <v1m8albg7obp2c@corp.supernews.com>
X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader
Message-ID: <6VGS9.671738$QZ.99527@sccrnsc02>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.234.13.56
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: sccrnsc02 1041971906 12.234.13.56 (Tue, 07 Jan 2003 20:38:26 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 20:38:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 20:38:26 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32700
Date: 2003-01-07T20:38:26+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>A baesean filter wouldn't even see the mail, unless it knows how to
   -------
  I've been assuming this was "Bayesian", no?