* Jeremy Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-01 14:13 -0500]: > Considering that we aren't using any pattern matching, no. (Vipul's is > checksumming + network query,
And unusable because its database is filled with too many wrong submissions, most probably because of clueless users that automatically submit everything an automatic spam detector like spamassassin detects as spam. Introducing the auto-report into spamassassin was a very bad idea. Plus, the maintainer is even too stupid to even parse mbox files. If told that his parsing is wrong, he decided to ignore the bug. BTDT. > the new bayesian methods are word-granular statistical analysis. I've > also seen some that use perl as a wrapper to run various scanners > written in other languages, with predictable results.) > > The problem is instantiating perl once (or more times, if using > multiple checks) per every damn message. That isn't cheap. Solutions > that use a daemon could write the daemon in perl and it would be less > of a problem, provided the client that has to talk to the daemon isn't > also perl. That's what spamassassin (spamc/spamd) does. The tons of regular expressions and querying certain blacklists, etc. are still noticably expensive, even in my single-user setup. Gerhard -- mail: gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de registered Linux user #64239 web: http://www.cs.fhm.edu/~ifw00065/ OpenPGP public key id AD24C930 public key fingerprint: 3FCC 8700 3012 0A9E B0C9 3667 814B 9CAA AD24 C930 reduce(lambda x,y:x+y,map(lambda x:chr(ord(x)^42),tuple('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')))
