mouss wrote:
> The approach is flawed. a single word shouldn't be enough to tag mail as
> spam.

As a general rule, yes 100% agree...but to play devil's advocate for a
second, I slam any message that contains references to a little blue
pill starting with "V" and sounding like a play on Niagara Falls. In
an I.T. shop, I don't see any need for someone to mention that word in
any business-related correspondence. :P However, if I were managing
mail for a medical institution (which I have in the past), the rules
would be very different...and a lot more complex!

Bottom line, SpamAssassin is a heuristics based classifier, and as such
shouldn't really be used to classify one way or the other based on a
single criterion. Such approaches void the whole idea of heuristics.
So I guess I saying "yep agree", but there are corner cases in some