I wrote:
> I only check the body, and unfortunately, it's not signature or MIME
> aware. PGP signatures, therefore, add to the Signal score as opposed
> to the Noise score.
Chris Johnson Bidler wrote:
> Why should PGP signatures add to the Noise score?
They shouldn't. They shouldn't even factor in, really. I should have
stated such, "...as opposed to being ignored". IMHO, a good base
scoring rule for emails would look something like this:
+2 per quoted line ("^>" or "name>")
-1 per unquoted line
+10 per "Original Message"
+1 per "quoted header"
+5 for signatures > 4 lines (following a "^--$")
-20 Content-Type: text/plain
+20 for content-Type: text/html
etc...
A positive score means that the mail is too noisy. I suppose that
since PGP signatures add to the signal, to nullify, I could add a score
to positively counteract that. Notice how a multipart/mixed message
that contains both HTML and plain text nullify eachother. This doesn't
factor in the score bonus that people would get for having the HTML
portion of the body, however.
This simple little scoring algorithm is VERY succeptable to false
positives. It's only a simple way to flag possible noise. I'll need a
more sophisticated mail analyzer to get a true signal:noise ratio.
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie at wookimus.net> | a.k.a. ^chewie
http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr
Get my public key, ICQ#, etc. $(mailx -s 'get info' chewie at wookimus.net)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20020225/3239508e/attachment.pgp