I kept all my spam mail that I recieved over the last year in a separate mailfolder in Outlook. I did that because now and then Outlook would identify a valid email as spam so I kept them in a separate folder for sorting out every week or so. When I moved to Fedora a good 2 months ago I imported the spam and trained spamassassin with it. I must say that here it now works excellent with Evolution. --Yves On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 16:12, Nigel Wade wrote: > Charles Howse wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hi, > > > > While reading another thread, I remembered I had no custom preferences for > > spamassassin, and decided to create some. > > > > I use the default settings for starting spamassassin at boot, and the > > following filters in KMail: > > 1. In KMail menus, select Settings->Configure Filters > > 2. Create a new filter with filter criteria: > > <any header> matches regular expression . > > (the regular expression is just the character "." meaning > > "any character") > > and filter action: > > pipe through spamc > > Uncheck the box "stop processing if this filter matches" > > 3. Add a second filter below the one created in step 2, with criteria: > > <any header> contains X-Spam-Flag: YES > > and action: > > move to folder trash > > (or whatever you want to do with your spam) > > check the "stop processing..." box > > > > These filters are working fine, with the exception of those html spams with > > all the random words in the body when viewed in text mode. > > > > I was just wondering if anyone would like to share some _generic_ preferences > > for ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs, or comment. > > > The way to catch those is with Bayesian filtering. You need to teach the > Bayesian filter with sufficient messages so that it learns what is spam and > what is not (at least 1000 of each is a good rule of thumb for best accuracy). > > The random words don't have a significant effect on the Bayesian scoring as > it uses words which are the most like spam and least like spam to determine > the overall "spaminess" of the message. > > When it's trained well it's very good. I recently installed SA on our mail > server, trained with about 5000 spam and 3000 ham. Out of the last 3000+ > messages I've received I've got no false positives and it's only failed to > identify 2 spams. > > But if you are going to do spam filtering in the mail client, why not use > Mozilla/Firebird? It has Bayesian filtering built in, and it's pretty good > once it's been taught. It's much easier to teach than SA for a single user - > a single mouse click is all that's required for each message. > > -- > Nigel Wade >
