[Spambayes] Spamvolution

[Tim Peters]

>> Not yet, no.  In fact, I don't do *anything* with To: lines
>> except count the number of times a To header appears, and the case
>> ("To" vs "TO" vs "to" vs "tO" -- and you shouldn't either.


[Anthony Baxter]
> Hm. Is it just me, or are
>   To: a@b.c
>   To: b@d.e
>   To: d@f.g
> and
>   To: a@b.c, b@d.e, d@f.g
> of equal value in spamminess indication?

It's the mere presence of *any* To header that's a ham indicator in my
database.  For whatever reason, a significant number of spams simply don't
have a To: header (maybe to hide the recipient list?).  Jeremy recently
added some code (that's not yet enabled by default) to get better value from
this (the current defaults infer ham from the presence of To, but don't
infer spam from its absence).

> What other headers have multiple entries combined in this way? Just
> to: and cc: ?

Barry's always eating lunch when you need him <wink>.