on Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:38 AM -0800, Bart Schaefer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Just food for thought: > > http://www.rosat.mpe-garching.mpg.de/mailing-lists/procmail/2002-10/msg00465.html
Some agreement, some disagreement. SA w/o tuning does present a number of false positives. Whitelist rules or exceptions should be applied prior to spamassassin tests. On a centralized mailserver with several hundred accounts, filtering _does_ make the server break a sweat...when a thousand or so spam messages on us (typical throughput is on the order of messages daily). Virus scanning contributes more to our load, and using qmail means we're spawning processes like crazy anyway. On a workstation, given a steady mail delivery flow, the overhead's hardly noticeable, and _very_ worthwhile for the increase in mail management. My own procmail filters were effective at ridding spam but tended to have far higher false-positive rates than SA. Save the work and improve the effort -- can't beat that with a stick. Cheers. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeRun Technologies Sr. Systems Administrator vox 707.265.1836 x121 http://www.freeruntech.com Your computer account is overdrawn. Please reauthorize.
msg09683/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
