eters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:01 AM
Subject: Improving sa
Andy Pieters wrote on Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:01:44 +0100:
> What can I do to increase effectiveness of spamassassin in diffrentiating
> spam
> from ham?
Use SARE rules/ rulesdujour and drop as many mail as you can on MTA level (If
you
run an MTA). Your FP rate of 10% is not acceptable at all, it
From: Andy Pieters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Second, it seems that spamassassin vs spam is nothing less then an
> arms-race, with spamassassin perpetually running behind.
Yes, and the same is true of anti-virus programs.
>
> As more and more rules are added, doesn't it come to a point where
On Monday 28 November 2005 Andy Pieters wrote
> > Right now, there's about 10% of all messages that come in on a
> > day
> > (4.500) that are injustly marked as ham or spam (10% is not a lot, but
> > still
> > 45 messages each day!)
On Monday 28 November 2005 17:31, Mike Jackson wrote:
> Uh, wou
When manually applying the filters "Mark as SPAM" or "Mark as HAM", which
pipe
the message to the command sa-learn --spam or sa-learn --ham respectively,
it
takes up to a minute to process on a PIV 4.3Ghz HT with 1Gb of RAM, which
seems like ages.
I've noticed that the SQL backends to Bayes an
Hi list
I have been using spamassassin for over a year now in combination with Kmail.
First, some observations
When manually applying the filters "Mark as SPAM" or "Mark as HAM", which pipe
the message to the command sa-learn --spam or sa-learn --ham respectively, it
takes up to a minute to pr
