spambayes

Justin Zygmont jzygmont at solarflow.net
Wed May 10 18:29:11 UTC 2006


On Wed, 10 May 2006, Aaron Konstam wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 13:52 -0700, Justin Zygmont wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 May 2006, Claude Jones wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue May 9 2006 1:38 pm, Justin Zygmont wrote:
>>>> Are you able to tell if its much more effective than
>>>> spamassassin?  I get spam coming through spamassassin with a
>>>> 0.0 score!
>>>
>>> I've never taken the time to learn how to configure spamassassin
>>> properly, so I'm not a good judge. With default install
>>> settings, I did often note that when I had both spamassassin and
>>> spambayes as filters, that many messages were let through as low
>>> percentage by spamassassin, but were trapped by Spambayes. I
>>> don't know if that's much of a test, however.
>>
>> spamassassin is easy, I just have procmail pipe it to spamd like this:
>>
>> :0fw
>> | spamc
>>
>> :0 H
>> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
>> /dev/null
>>
>>
>> if you still get spam, just view the email headers and se what the score
>> was.  I was suprised to find some major spam messages coming through with
>> a 0.0 score.  Its a tough problem to beat sometimes..
> That is where training come in, What you describe should not be
> happening. Do you train you classifier?

that just crossed my mind as you mentioned it, please let me know what you 
do about this.





More information about the fedora-list mailing list