[Teammetrics-discuss] Web Archive Parser ready for your testing.

[Sukhbir Singh]

Hi,

> As far as I remember we did NOT used this as qualifiers for SPAM.  Any
> poster might have set clock wrongly or have a broken mailer (rather the
> contrary - I expect SPAMers today as clever enough to set these
> parameters valid).

It was more of 'I thought' rather than 'we thought' :) There were some
Message-IDs missing in my initial testing that were spam so I thought
to implement this. Later, I was proved wrong though because there were
more genuine messages that had this field missing than spam.

> In short:  I would vote for trying to detect SPAM as we did in our other
> algorithms and as I did in my original hack which was finally based on
> the same input data and worked to some extend (just ping me if you need
> some additional explanation to the Perl code).

Ok then done. spamfilter.py already uses the 'enhanced' version of the
'filters' we discussed, so I will just use that and see how well it
goes (it was working fine for liststat.py).