At 2013-08-02T13:25:45+01:00, RW wrote:
> It is, but the existing SA installation already has Bayes and network
> test running. You're only going to improve on it by better Bayes
> training and active management (tweaking and rule writing).
>
> I think you might get better results, with less main
At 2013-08-02T09:38:42+01:00, James Griffin wrote:
> Yes, of course you can. You can put SA on any machine that processes
> mail no matter if it's been scanned prior to arriving at your server.
Thanks for the reply. However, since it's been pointed out by others
that it may be better to use anot
On Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:31:57 PM Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> You have trained more ham than spam. That's not necessarily a problem,
> and opinions differ greatly. But it might be indication your Bayes is
> skewed.
Hmm. I'm not really sure how that can be. Anything detected as spam is
rejec
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 01:39:45 +0530
N. Raghavendra wrote:
> I work in a setup where the external mail server (say,
> extmail.example.com) in a DMZ runs Spamassassin as soon as mail
> arrives from the Internet, and then passes the mail to an internal
> mail server (say, intmail.example.com) which ha
Fri 2.Aug'13 at 12:55:40 +0530, N. Raghavendra
> At 2013-08-02T01:39:45+05:30, N. Raghavendra wrote:
>
> > I work in a setup where the external mail server (say,
> > extmail.example.com) in a DMZ runs Spamassassin as soon as mail arrives
> > from the Internet, and
At 2013-08-02T01:39:45+05:30, N. Raghavendra wrote:
> I work in a setup where the external mail server (say,
> extmail.example.com) in a DMZ runs Spamassassin as soon as mail arrives
> from the Internet, and then passes the mail to an internal mail server
> (say, intmail.example.com) which has use
