Blocking Spam

jdow jdow at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 26 22:06:19 UTC 2006


From: "Dotan Cohen" <dotancohen at gmail.com>

> On 26/12/06, Tim <ignored_mailbox at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 09:08 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote:
>> > Also, I'd strongly recommend training SA's Bayesian analysis, using
>> > the sa-learn program. SpamAssassin won't use Bayesian analysis until
>> > it has learnt 200 good ("ham") e-mails and 200 spams.
>>
>> Isn't that supposed to be the point of the junk/not-junk buttons on mail
>> clients?
>>
>> > Bayesian analysis continues to be a *very* good way of analysing
>> > e-mail, in my experience.
>>
>> Back when I was still using Windows, I used to use the in-built one that
>> came with The Bat! mail client.  It seemed to do a reasonable job, and
>> it was damn quick (unlike the speed of any kind of mail filtering in
>> Evolution).  Though, before that, I'd knocked most spam off, without any
>> false positives, with about 12 mail rules.
>>
>
> Kmail has a very decent bayesian filter called bogomail. I had to
> teach it for about two weeks before it started doing any filtering
> itself, with about 70 spams a day to 20 or so hams. At first it
> started filtering out only the most obvious spam, but now (about two
> months after first install) it only lets 2-3 spams through a day, with
> no false positives so far.
>
> But Bogofilter is my second line of defence. On the POP3 server I've
> got spammassasin running, it traps about 300 spams a day, with two or
> three false positives that I've discovered in the past few months.
>
> So my 400:20 spam:ham ratio gets down to 70:20 at the server, and
> further reduced to 3:20 at the Inbox. I can live with that.

Bicycle with one pedal, indeed.

500 to 1000 emails a day to my accounts.
150 to 300 of them are spams.
Typical false markups are 0 to 3 a week.

(I run a fairly agressive set of SARE rule sets in addition to the DNS tests
and default SpamAssassin rules.)

{^_^} 




More information about the fedora-list mailing list