-------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:48:14 -0700 > Von: LuKreme <krem...@kreme.com> > An: postfix-users@postfix.org > Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
> On 18-Jan-2010, at 17:15, Steve wrote: > > You don't seem to be very confident in your Anti-Spam solution if you > skip certain senders. Does your Anti-Spam solution not have an mechanism to > automatically skip checking mails form senders you communicate often? > > > Oh, I dunno. I have manually whitelisted most of m friends and family out > of spam checks. > I never do that. It's so easy to fake and I like it when the Anti-Spam solution does that automatically for me (based on the internal ruleset of the Anti-Spam solution). > First off, there's no reason to run their messages through the check, so > it's a waste of processor time. > I have another opinion on that. The Anti-Spam solution I use has normally 0.01 seconds (or less but could be more as well) per message when classifying a mail for Ham/Spam. Every processing of a message allows me to increase the accuracy of the solution. If the engine makes errors then I correct them and the engine learns. Whitelisting all friends, family members, etc from the beginning is taking away from me the possibility to get better results in the future. I want my Anti-Spam engine to learn. I want it to work and get better. I want it to learn who is my friend and who not. I want it to whitelist my friends/family members only if they don't send me Spam. If the engine thinks they send me Spam then I want the engine to adapt and learn. If the solution is constantly making errors in that regard then this would not tighten my confidence in the solution and I personally would soon look for another solution. That's how I think about it. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying tha t my viewpoint is the only valid viewpoint and that yours is absolutely wrong and and and. I just tried to bring closer to you how I see that topic and how I handle it. Without judging which approach is the better one. I know that any approach is right and in the same time wrong. There is none universal valid approach. > Second of all, there are sometimes false > positives (like when I get sent .ppt files which seem to often trigger SA's > thresholds). > Would that not be a opportunity to look at SA and try to find a way to improve the PPT handling? > Yes, the AWL does a lot to eliminate these problems, but it's not perfect. > I understand. > -- > ########################## Steve -- Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3.5 - sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser
