On 12/11/2015 07:29 PM, Joe Quinn wrote:
On 12/11/2015 1:24 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.12.2015 um 19:12 schrieb Axb:
On 12/11/2015 06:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
well, how many of you trained chistmas spam this year while my bayes
did
know it from last year?
I like my Bayes fresh like bread out of the oven, new guitar strings and
clean sheets.
well, i like my bayes catch spam at every point in time without repeat
to slip things through once already caught - tell me one reason why i
should let phishing pass through to customers which was already detected
96% of all milter-rejected mails got 3.5-7.5 points from bayes while
at the same time 77% of all scanned mail got -3.5 points - in other
words most ham has BAYES_00 most spam hast BAYES_80-BAYES_999 - that's
what the bayes is supposed to do
Last years turkey doesn't appeal to me.
and what is last years spam making it now again through until relearn?
spammers would have so much more work if they didn't know that in a
few months they can re-use their templates after a large enough break,
as a spammer i would even schedule the usage of them automated
Agreed, and adding that we do see a large percentage of repeat seasonal
spam templates. You need at least some of your data to carry over for at
least a year, maybe two in order to stay effective.
We're obviously catering to a different user base, seeing different
traffic, etc, and have different approaches.
Each method is valid if you're happy with the results and your arsenal
does what you need it to do.
I hate stale data... that's all.
