David Champion wrote: > > the fact of the matter is that spamassassin works. i personally
> I'm glad your mileage varies, but for me, it flagged less than half > of my incoming spam, and flagged *many* false positives. I haven't > read the article in question, and I don't go around telling people > that SpamAssassin is bad software, but the fact of the matter is that > it realistically might not work for some people while yet working for > others. hrmm well i get spam in my inbox once every couple of days; don't get too many false matches now that i raised the spam score to '7'. however, i do filter almost all of my mail with procmail (and have a lot of annoying almost-spam type people going to the bit bucket already), so there's very little that actually goes to my inbox. pretty much everyone i know who has used it has found it pretty darn accurate though, and i like the fact that you can get a report of exactly what tests were matched and how much they were scored. obviously if you're in the financial industry, you might want to score some of the finance type stuff down a lot... > The same goes for anything else that analyzes message content by such a > rule system. I'm not picking on the one package, particularly. sure.. that's why i personally wouldn't actually *bounce* mail based on such a system (unless i didn't mind some amount of legitimate mail getting bounced; in all the situations i've personally been in, that's not really acceptable). David T-G wrote: > I don't like the idea of an ISP filtering away the mail but what's the > average Outhouse (or Pegasus, as he seems to be) user to do otherwise? > He mentions buying a filter program; what an absurd idea :-) ISPs can tag messages, though, and simply add headers like "X-Spam: yes" or whatever. almost every decent GUI mail client (and possibly outlook too) can so some rudimentary filtering. so you filter messages tagged as spam to a "spam" folder, much as we would do with procmail. -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
