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

Re: spambayes



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?
-- 
Aaron Konstam <akonstam sbcglobal net>


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