On Jul 9, 2003 01:47 am, Kelsey Cummings wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 10:24:55AM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote: > ... > > > Certainly my initial impression after 24 hours is that DCC is the > > most effective, followed by RAZOR2, followed by PYZOR. All > > together is probably most effective of course, so long as the > > false positives of all three dont accumulate enough to register > > as spam. > > I've got a similar impression with my corpuses here, the DCC hit > rate appears higher than razor. One big advantage is you can run > your own DCC server and don't have to rely on the wonderful folks > who do an excellent job keeping the razor servers up (most of the > time.)
Looking at all spams received here recently (1103 total), I found the following hit totals for Razor2 and DCC (I don't use Pyzor): DCC: 677 (61.4%) Razor2: 563 (51.0%) The various RBL checks ranked as follows: NJABL: 742 (67.3%) DSBL: 491 (44.5%) OSIRUSOFT: 446 (40.4%) OPM: 280 (25.4%) RFCI: 158 (14.3%) And, for the Bayes scores: BAYES_99: 2.4% BAYES_90: 71.5% BAYES_80: 14.3% BAYES_70: 7.9% BAYES_60: 3.9% BAYES_50 or less: none Bayes has been trained with 5200/6200 ham/spams. During the period that the 1103 spams accumulated, there was 1 FN and 0 FPs. This is great performance. To the SA developers, I say: bravo! Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF Ottawa, ON [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
