According to S.D.A., > On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:18:53AM -0700 or thereabouts, Steve Lamb wrote: > > S.D.A. wrote: > > > I agree. I switched from SA several months ago, and am quite happy with the > > > speed, accuracy of Spamprobe over Spam Assassin. > > > > I think this thread has shown that many people have a gross misconception > > on how SpamAssassin works and how it is fundimentally different than the > > alternatives listed. In every case the alternatives listed have been a pure > > Bayesian system. SpamAssassin is *NOT* a Bayesian system. It is a framework > > in which a Bayesian system is also included. > > I think I was pretty fair. The fact that the SA framework is slower (I know due > to the complexity), is a show stopper for me. If I can achieve better accuracy, > with less work, increased speed, with less system resources -- Then I've found a > winner. At least for MY needs. I respect and understand that your needs may be > different.
I personally also switched from SA to something else. I love the SA framework idea, but its bayesian implementation was such that spammers could easily get past it by spewing random words. So I switched to CRM114's mailfilter. But given SA's framework-of-methods methodology perhaps a better approach would have been to integrate the better learning filter into SA. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
