On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:19:13 -0700, "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:21:59 -0700, Jeff Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Is version 3 really any better at stopping spam that 2.63? > > Version 3 stops different spam than 2.63, in my experience so far. > E.g. it's better at catching the drug spam but not as good at the > "earn cash for making phone calls" spam.
I would say that the *default* config of 3.X is significantly more effective than the default config of 2.63 or 2.64. But I think after some tweaking of 2.64 it's probably just as effective as 3.0, once you've added in the SpamCopURI patch, antidrug.cf, some of the other SARE custom rulesets. Both of them depend to a large extent on how much care you put into setting it up, training BAYES properly, etc. > Using it in local only mode, though, I've found it not very different. > The spams that get through 3.x that do not get through 2.6x are > generally (a) those that match BAYES_99, which by itself in the > default configuration is no longer a large enough score to make me > happy, or (b) would have been tagged as spam except that the AWL > "smoothed" them down to just below the threshhold. Yup. But I wouldn't turn off AWL if I were you. I think it's a very nice feature, and has probably prevented a few false positives for me. Yes, occasionally it will pull the score the wrong way across the threshold, but if it's doing that, you're better off figuring out why this person's messages get an *average* score on the wrong side of your threshold anyway. If you get that fixed, then the AWL will stop pulling messages the wrong way across your threshold. I do customize my BAYES scores because I'm not very happy with the defaults. I find that a significant portion of spam manages to reduce its Bayes probability to 40-60% by including large chunks of innocent text at the end of the message. So I add the below to my lines to local.cf, because most of my ham scores below 10%, while the messages that hit Bayes' 40-60% range are more than 95% spam. This still catches those spams which hit BAYES_99, and for that rare ham that hits BAYES_99 (I've never seen one, but I suppose they must be out there), the AWL or another whitelist rule will hopefully pull it back under five points. score BAYES_00 -4.9 score BAYES_01 -2.0 score BAYES_10 -1.5 score BAYES_20 -1.0 score BAYES_30 -0.5 score BAYES_40 0.1 score BAYES_44 0.7 score BAYES_50 1.0 score BAYES_56 1.5 score BAYES_60 2.1 score BAYES_70 3.1 score BAYES_80 4.2 score BAYES_90 4.9 score BAYES_99 5.4 -- snowjack(a)fastmail.fm
