On 07/01/2014 06:09 PM, RW wrote:>
> I'm sceptical about the use of Dovecot-Antispam with Spamassassin.
> The problem is that it trains on SpamAssassin errors rather than Bayes
> errors. It may be possible to get sufficient spam this way, but ham
> is learned very slowly through avoidable FPs.
>
We currently (early days for this installation) get plenty of spam for
the users to train by moving it to the junk folder. Ham was the problem.
Dovecot does nothing about training ham. That's why I have a line in the
users' default .forward file to train incoming mail as ham. Then if they
or Thunderbird decide to move the mail to Junk, it gets re-trained as spam.
dovecot-antispam is *not* a complete solution, so far as I can see.
At this early stage, it *is* painful to watch all that spam coming in
over the weekend getting trained as ham. I tell my users to mark it as
spam on Monday morning. And if they don't, I just figure it's not my fault.
Once the token databases get larger there won't be so much potential
flux back and forth, I guess.
-Steve
