On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Justin Mason wrote:

> However as you note, you may be able to use the *absence* of a rule
> hit as
> a ham token. Also, you could add some "informational" rules matching
> common innocent traits of nonspam mail, for the purpose of serving
> as good
> ham rules in this setup.
> By the way, we've tried this in the past without good results. But
> please
> do try; it's quite likely that there are good ways to do this which we
> haven't tried.
> Also, yes, it would be possible to do this quite easily as a new Check
> plugin. Simply subclass the existing one and reimplement the
> methods t

The results so far have been very good. But the resources required
to use SpamAssassin and my own filter are more than my current
hardware can manage. It's very small. But perhaps I can get a
cleaner implementation and improve performance.