may be crucial, as long as the cost (in speed,
processing) is not too high.
We have reached the point of making cost/performance tradeoffs. For most
users, all of the above are well past "good enough to use."
Liudvikas Bukys
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55892-2003Jul1.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/135144116_spamhormel02.html
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/07/02/1453254.shtml?tid=111&tid=126
---
This SF.Net email spon
I like Razor, it catches stuff that nothing else does, and volume is inherent to spam.
BUT its precision is shot lately.
AND because it never sees content, it can't adjudicate disputes over spamminess in
order to award trust to the folks who are really right.
--
Here is a little kludge that I use to refile MH mail (e.g. I refile inbox
spam into inbox.suspect). You can process your mbox files by using MH
"inc" to extract the messages, and MH "packf" to pack them into mbox format.
Your linux box probably has nmh installed already.
Bug? The bayes code in 2.50 doesn't get invoked from spamd because there
is no hook from handle_user to [re]open the bayes databases.
I have to think this is an oversight, but I thought I'd better ask.
* Should spamd do this?
The learn code is a bit slow and if the authors are open to code
submis
