On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 02:08:26 AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Bah; SpamAssassin is the swiss-army-knife of spam filters. It includes
> a bayesian filter (not to mention things like razor and dcc, which are
> constantly up-to-date), and as such, does not require updating the
> rules.
But razor and dcc consume bandwidth, so to figure out if SA is
worthwhile maybe one should ask:
0) Do I have a flat rate fast connection, where I wouldn't notice SA
contactly doing network checks?
1) after the whole message has been downloaded anyway, does SA block
a LOT more spam than bogofilter or qsf? "if" the answer is yes,
(and that is quite a big "if", judging from both online literature
and other answers in this thread...) is the difference big enough
to justify the extra CPU and/or bandwidth consumption, plus keeping
the rules updated?
I mean sure, SA has tons of extra non-bayesian tricks to catch spam,
but if the bayesian algorithms in bogofilter or qsf catch almost all
of it anyway without those extra tricks, bandwidth, cpu cycles and
manual maintenance... do I need to bother (this *is* a serious
question, I'm really trying to figure out if the _possibility_ to go
from just 1/2 spam messages a day in my inbox to 0 is worth the extra
effort)??
Of course, the answer depend on one's needs, how much mail he or she
receives and much other stuff. And if one has full control of the MTA,
where lots of spam can and should be recognized and blocked before
ever starting SA or any other content filter.
Ciao,
Marco
--
Help your relatives, friends and partners love Free Standards and Free
Software! http://digifreedom.net/node/84
