On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0200, Mikael Bak wrote: > Steve wrote: > [big snip] > >> So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have user in > >> control. > >> > > Yes. The big problem is that no solution out there is 100% accurate for all > > users. So the only way to make the user happy is to delegate the control to > > him. > > > > Can't speek for all users. But I have the impression that users don't > want to go through piles of spam and take action. They just expect the > damn spam filter to work by itself. > > At least our users expect this :-) > > Mikael > Hi,
Speaking for our environment, we use DSPAM with a pre-trained base so that when a user starts initially, they get reasonably good spam filter/false positive rates. This means that instead of "piles of spam" they have just a few mistakes and the accuracy increases quickly from there to the point that the vast majority of users have to train perhaps a couple of messages a month. The initial pretraining is good enough relative to other systems that many never train at all. Rule based filtering, on the other hand, was very labor intensive for the users and fraught with false-positive and negatives. As a member of the support team, we have many fewer problems regarding spam E-mail since we changed to DSPAM from a purely filter-based approach. We use SpamAssassin via amavisd-new and statistical filtering such as that provided by DSPAM, CRM114, and others do a much better job with much less maintenance. Cheers, Ken
