On Wed May 10 2006 4:41 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > In the filter configuration for classifying as spam, I changed > it to the following: > sa-learn -L --spam --sync > You're not treading on my toes. Where did you put that entry, above? > 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. I did manually train spamassassin during one period when I tried to use it because I was having configuration problems with Spambayes. There was not a dramatic effect - it seemed like I'd classify something as spam, and the same message would keep getting through as ham - I made a mini-attempt to learn about configuring spamassassin, but was in a hurry and didn't readily find answers. Shortly after, I sorted out my Spambayes issue, so I stopped using spamassassin. I've read repeatedly that spamassassin works well, so I chalked up my experience to inexperience, and poor configuration. Someone on this list whose views I respect once said that the best anti-spam strategy was a combination of spamassassin and spambayes. Now, having got my curiosity up, I'm discovering some man pages I didn't find previously, and see that spamassassin has a bayes-ian component to its filtering. Looks like its time to revisit the subject, for me. -- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD, USA
