> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > 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.
