Robert Schetterer wrote: >> > > however , i have a ham/spam transport learn mail address, > nearly null users forwards something to it, no wonder > the false positve rate is nearly null > > in fact , there are systems with webmail guis for classify > spam i.e aol, reality shows users dont use it very wise > perhaps clicking field spam and delte are to near etc or they are simply > dummy > > my conclusion dont waste your time to implement complicated mechs > for ham/spam training, work on the tagging/rejecting side to reduce > false positive rate >
Hi I can not agree more to that ... at the end, sooner or later, you discover having spent time on something with erroneous or no return at all ... not even talking about the support-overhead this extra mboxes will create beside the obvious you already said it is still highly questionable if a "user" is able to classify reliable. also, IMO, most SPAM hits obvious account names/combinations and most user are not affected by the problem, unless their addresses are standard_names@ since years I do not care so much any more and run a pretty standard spamassassin but I query maillog for delivering attempts to not existing accounts. First I slow it down after 2 invalid destination addresses but also record the sender details and block them for three month from within access file (I run sendmail everywhere) that works so smooth for me, still with almost zero cpu overhead for spamd and it is practical, easy and cheap, the result is, before I got on certain accounts 50 SPAMS per day, now 2 maybe 3 and that numbers are for mservers with each of them having +50.000 accounts going through Hans -- XTrade Assessory International Facilitator BR - US - CA - DE - GB - RU - UK +55 (11) 4249.2222 http://xtrade.matik.com.br
