On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 22:48 +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> On Friday 18 August 2006 01:55, jdow wrote:
> > From: "Nigel Henry" <cave.dnb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > I can't say I'm too clued up on the finer points of spam
> filtering, but
> > > am willing to learn. Ideally spam should be stopped at source, but
> I
> > > don't suppose there's much chance of that happening.
>
> Joanne writes.
> >
> > I can give a data dump.
>
> <big snip>
>
> > {^_-} Joanne
>
> Thanks very much for all the info. I'll file it, and work my way
> through it.
>
> Regarding your comment that a bayes filter was not sufficient on it's
> own, I
> did see a post on this list a while back, where someone was first
> filtering
> using SA, then followed by a second filtering with a bayes filter,
> which I
> think was "spambayes" (couldn't find that, but think it was supposed
> to be on
> sourceforges site). They claimed that what was missed by SA was picked
> up by
> the second filtering with the bayesian filter, and virtually
> eliminated all
> the spam.
>
Well Joanne has unique ideas about spam filtering but what you say above
is questionable. Spamassassin uses baysian filtering just like spambayes
does. The two programs have about equal spam removal abilities. Using
one after the other is overkill. When used correctly spamassassin should
allow you to remove your spam.
When is someow going to change this silly subject header, by the way.
--
=======================================================================
Change your thoughts and you change your world.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
