From: "James Bucanek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote on Friday, June 10, 2005:
>1) You need to visit http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and select at least
> a few of the SARE rules sets. They do really help SA performance.
I'm checking these out now.
>2) I found best results here if I bucked up the BAYES_99 rule to 5
> points. So far I have not seen that trigger a ham message with per
> user Bayes. That per user Bayes is important. Shared Bayes is not
> nearly as effective and should be banned in Boston - and the rest
> of the world, too. It's a copout. Users MUST be prepared to help
> by training their personal filters. Otherwise they must accept
> increased spam escapes.
I'm bumping up my Bayes scores in just a few minutes. We'll see what
happens.
As for per-user Bayes, I'm afriad that's simply out of the question. I have
one user who still won't use subject lines, and another who hasn't figured
out how to address e-mail yet (she just uses Reply). Seriously. Trying to
explain Bayes filtering would be an exercise in futility. I have to provide
a server-side solution and manage it myself, or do nothing at all.
[JDOW>>] If that is the case then beef up the SARE rules. You WILL leak
since per site Bayes cannot handle the job. One person's ham is another
person's spam. And if the people will not train on spam then either you
must read every email yourself and decide whether it is ham or spam for
training or you should just take Bayes out of the equation. People who
are too lazy to train Bayes are just going to have to suffer from spam.
Be happy with low catch rates unless all your interests and spam words
are the same.
>3) 3.0.4 is out. It installs nicely. (But give it a lot of time for
> some of its tests. My first shot at a CPAN install I thought it
> had died or locked up on a couple tests.)
Does it make that much of a difference over 3.0.2? If so, I might take a
shot at upgrading later this month or next, when I get the time.
[JDOW>>] Yes.
{^_^}
