Cris Fuhrman wrote on Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:23:33 -0500: > I think our sysadmins (and I'm sure they're not unique) don't have > enough time to feed ham/spam to the B. filters. Given the > effectiveness of SpamPal's simple approach, it seems to me that the > return on investment for correct Bayesion filtering is not worth it in > our case. I'm not criticizing the approach, per se. Just saying it > would be good to know how to set up a lightweight, low-maintenance > version of SpamAssassin. >
1. nobody knows how your sysadmins have setup your SA or even what version it is. If there is so much spam getting thru it's either outdated or not sufficiently configured. Talk to them, let them read spamassassin.org and let them ask here. It doesn't make sense to tell them thru a user what they should do. 2. Bayes needs constant training. However, after the initial setup it usually trains itself by autolearn. We don't train Bayes on any of our machines by hand for a long time and the spam detection rate is excellent. 3. It's possible to get very good spam detection with just a few rules or some other technique. The problem is that this may work for some people but doesn't for others, f.i. not for large and diverse environments. Especially the false positives can be quite high for one person or group and low for another, depends on what mail they get. 4. To answer your question in short. With a little bit of SARE rules and SURBL SA 3.x works just fine out-of-the-box. Once you have an initialized Bayes DB it adds to that. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
