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

Re: spambayes



> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 15:09 -0400, 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.
>> --
>> Claude Jones
>> Bluemont, VA, USA
> I try to be pleasant and relate positively to what people say on the
> list. But when someone says that he have never taken the trouble to
> learn how to configure a program and then says it does not work well for
> him, I am speechless.
>
> --
> Aaron Konstam <akonstam sbcglobal net>
>
>

That's not what I read there at all.  He said, in effect, that the default
setting seemed to let spam through spamassassin but not for Spambayes. He
also indicated that this was probably not a good test.

I saw no indication of a value judgement in Claude's response, only a hint
that, in his experience, you probably ought not to trust the default
settings. settings.


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