Chris Santerre a écrit : > > I have long said that IMHO, I do not think bayes is worth it. Left > unattended, it isn't as good. A simple rule can take out a lot of spam. Some > may say rule writing is more complicated then training bayes. Maybe. Not so > much the rule writing, but the figuring out what to look for and testing for > FPs. > > I do not run Bayes for our company. Obviously I'm partial to URIBL.com and > SARE rules ;) I get about 98% of spam caught, and little FPs. > > This is going to sound like tooting our own horn, but so be it. Before SARE, > Bayes was cool. After SARE, I see no need.
I think SARE and bayes are complementary: - sare will detect new spam once ninjas have found the corresponding rules. - bayes will detect new spam if it resembles previous spam. That said, I don't use SA/Bayes (I use dspam on a per-user basis, while SA is site-wide).
