At 04:29 AM Friday, 7/5/2002, Mike Burger wrote -=> > So, then, if I'm supposed to only use spamassassin -r to manually report > spam, how in heaven's name do I use Razor, in conjunction with SA, to > check for spam?
If you installed razor, SA will use it. Check the test results in a message that gets scored as spam: SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ---------------------- SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future. SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. SPAM: SPAM: Content analysis details: (18.2 hits, 7 required) SPAM: Hit! (3.0 points) Listed in Razor, see http://razor.sourceforge.net/ SPAM: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results --------------------- > I mean, I've been using SA for quite a while now, and have found that > 2.20 and now 2.31 dramatically cut down on the false positives...in fact, > since installing a 2.x version, and moving the spamtrap portion of my > procmail recipes to be the very last rules I use, I hadn't seen anything > dropped into my caughtspam file that wasn't actually spam...I've been > very pleased, in fact, with that. I had to add a few entries to my whitelist but very few... > I do get the occasional missed spam, and realize that I can report that > (I guess I have to save that out to its own individual file, and then run > SA with the -r on that), and my understanding is that I'm supposed to be > able to run Razor in a way that checks against the Razor lists. See above. Check the test results... I am beginning to see that there is more than one school of thought on this issue. I am subscribing to the theory that if it's spam, whether SA caught it or not, I report it as described below. > On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ed Kasky wrote: >> I had the same thought when I first starting using SA ;-) >> >> I did learn though that automatically passing any mail that may get tagged >> as spam onto Razor is not a good idea as you really should verify that it >> is spam and not a false positive. I had quite a number of false positives >> early on.... >> >> There are some things you can do that will definitely speed things up for >> you once you have clearly identified a message as being spam. I used >> Theo's handlespam as a starting point: >> >> http://www.kluge.net/~felicity/random/handlespam.txt Ed Kasky Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . . . "It's not a very big step from contentment to complacency." - Simone De Beauvoir ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Got root? We do. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
