>>>>> "JM" == Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JM> Ralf Hildebrandt said: >> He's wrong on this: >> Fourth, and I've saved the best for last: SA is a HOG. I refuse to >> fire up perl for each message, and I refuse to full-body-grep each >> message that comes in. >> (spamc/spamd and also it doesn't do a full body grep) JM> true! JM> But it's a fundamental mismatch in approaches anyway -- accuracy costs JM> CPU, and our position is to spend that CPU to gain the accuracy. JM> It's an order of magnitude faster than DNSbls anyway. ;) I read the original message linked from this thread and he was saying that his customized, personalized, specific-to-him rules worked better for his specific email mix than SA did. This is, of course, expected. SA would probably be just as effective if he ran the GA on his corpus of personal mail, so it was tuned to his mix of messages. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
