:-) See below.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 11:29 PM > To: Chris Santerre > Cc: 'Harri Pesonen'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re[2]: [SAtalk] bqtW Powerful DVD copy software. nhmW Now you > can s ave your favorite movies. (fwd) > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello Chris, > > Wednesday, August 6, 2003, 8:40:38 AM, you wrote: > > CS> I'm sorry but I don't like that answer. Bayes is great. > But a simple > CS> rule is all it takes and all DVD spam goes away. > > CS> Header L_s_CopyDVD Subject =~ /\bc[o0]py\ dvd|dvd > c[o0]py\b/i > CS> describe L_s_CopyDVD Subject mentions copying DVDs (RM) > CS> score L_s_CopyDVD 3.1 > > CS> Bayes is best left to handle the non obvious stuff. > > Chris, I hear you, but from my view Bayes is best allowed to > handle both > the obvious and the non-obvious. If Bayes will recognize the > DVD copiers > (recent DVD spam matched BAYES_70, 90, 90, 90, 90, 80, 90, > 90), then I'm > freed up from having to worry about this type of rule and can > concentrate > on other things. > > - From my point of view, spam detection should be handled by > 1) distributed rules (with a few score modifications if appropriate)
Yup. Adjust to taste. > 2) DSNBLs But some may not be able to use. I unfortunetly have to do business with countries that are spam havens. I can't afford the FPs on a business level. > 3) Bayes Some may not be able to use, or use easily. This is due to server setups. I'm one of these at the moment. I will attempt w/ 2.60 SA. > 4) blacklists (I haven't praised William Stearns' collection > in the last > five minutes, have I?) I believe these should be at the lower level before SA. Why waste the cycles :) > 5) personal rules Which leaves me with basically 1 and 5. :) Don't get me wrong, I was excited about Bayes! Still am. But because of my setup, I had to put it aside. Now I get a ridiculas amount of spam caught. maybe 1-3 slip thru a day for the entire company. So my thoughts on it changed a little. I wanted to see how far I could go with just custom rules. Which is why I'm still on 2.4x as well. I figured others might be in same boat. Admins not wanting to explain to users how to feed bayes. ISPs not wanting to use DNSBLs. ect.... > You'll notice that 3, 4, and 5 happen to be in increasing order by the > time required to implement them. Yup, and timeouts. If you can run all 5, then hell yeah. The more weapons the better. My problem was with the answer, not bayes. Simply saying "use bayes" isn't a great answer. Heck I could use that response to ANY and all post about a particular spam. :) Great discussion. Chris Santerre System Admin and SA Custom Rules Emporium keeper http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
