[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: spambayes

On Wed May 10 2006 4:41 am, Anne Wilson wrote:
> In the filter configuration for classifying as spam, I changed
> it to the following:
> sa-learn -L --spam --sync

You're not treading on my toes. Where did you put that entry, above?

> The difference was immediately obvious.  I understand that this is not the
> default setting because it is slower than the default, but it hasn't caused
> me any problems.  Of course, manually applying the filter to missed spam
> improves performance also.

I did manually train spamassassin during one period when I tried to use it 
because I was having configuration problems with Spambayes. There was not a 
dramatic effect - it seemed like I'd classify something as spam, and the same 
message would keep getting through as ham - I made a mini-attempt to learn 
about configuring spamassassin, but was in a hurry and didn't readily find 
answers. Shortly after, I sorted out my Spambayes issue, so I stopped using 
spamassassin. I've read repeatedly that spamassassin works well, so I chalked 
up my experience to inexperience, and poor configuration. Someone on this 
list whose views I respect once said that the best anti-spam strategy was a 
combination of spamassassin and spambayes.  Now, having got my curiosity up, 
I'm discovering some man pages I didn't find previously, and see that 
spamassassin has a bayes-ian component to its filtering. Looks like its time 
to revisit the subject, for me. 

Claude Jones
Brunswick, MD, USA

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]