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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
