On Thu, 26 May 2005, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:08 -0400, Jake Colman wrote:
> > Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA and which can
> > expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't the rules catch
> > pretty much everything anyway?
>
> I have used SA with Bayes and it took quite a bit of administrative
> overhead. It worked amazingly well, though.
>
> I now run SA with DCC, Razor, Pyzor and network checks and without Bayes
> and it still Just Works(TM). Seriously - I have customers who slather
You could make the argument that Razor, Pyzor, etc perform a similar
function to Bayes (analyze a message, generate some kind of 'collapsed'
representation, compare it with a database of known messages
and come up with a "spammyness" value).
As spammers are constantly mutating and adapting, having a dynamic,
adaptive component of SA is a must to avoid the "saw-tooth" effect.
(a fresh SA install works great, gradually loses effectiveness until a
new update install, and so on).
Bayes has the advantage that it's local, no network overhead, can be
trained to 'know' your specific kinds of messages.
Bayes has the disadvantage that it's your local responsibility to
see that it's trained properly.
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
