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

Re: spambayes



On Tuesday 09 May 2006 23:09, Claude Jones wrote:

> Let me rephrase this, since it seems to have raised Aaron's
> hackles. I'm not condeming spamassassin. I'm saying I am not
> competent to judge spamassassin, because I haven't taken the
> time to learn how it works, or how to adjust the parameters by
> which if judges what is/isn't spam.
>
> The simple point I made in my first message was that the default
> configuration set up by kmail to pipe mail through spamassassin
> was letting more spam through then filtering through spambayes
> was - that's it - just a comparison of a default, unaltered,
> install. 

I haven't been following this thread, so aplogies now if I tread on sore toes.

I, too, didn't have much time to spare for configuration, though I did look at 
it briefly.  I did find, though, that one simple change to kmail made a huge 
difference.  In the filter configuration for classifying as spam, I changed 
it to the following:
sa-learn -L --spam --sync

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.

Anne

Attachment: pgpOtcIkza6mQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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