On Wednesday 06 September 2006 03:27, jdow wrote: >From: "Thom Paine" <painethom@xxxxxxxxx> > >> I've been noticing that the config I had been using for aboutthe past >> year is slowly becoming less effective against spam. >> >> I'm currently using half a dozen or so bl's along with spam assassin. > >SARE is a wonderful rule source. http://www.rulesemporium.com/ is your >friend. Go to the "rules" page. Read the description of the rule sets >carefully, and select those which meet your needs. > >If you are REALLY desperate, have a poorly trained BAYES, and have >a lot of image spam you MIGHT check out the spamassassin-users list >archives for "FuzzyOCR". It is HIGHLY experimental and more than >moderately effective at this point. > >http://www.rulesemporium.com/programs/sa-stats.txt is a good script >for assessing the effectiveness of your various rules. A well trained >BAYES will leave you with BAYES_99 catching about 60% or more of all >spam and 0.04% or so of ham. BAYES_00 will have that pretty much the >reverse. If you have that raise the BAYES_99 score until you see it >developing false hits or reach a score equal to your threshold. (I >use the default of 5 with a LOT of SARE rule sets. I have perhaps >a couple spams in a week get trough out of 25000 emails a month. I >get virtually no hams get mismarked.) > >{^_^} I can pretty much confirm the effectiveness of that, Joanne. Such a lashup useing SARE gets 99.99% of the spam, with perhaps 10 falsely id'd hams a week, with about the same amount of traffic. I train sa-learn with those messages it miss-fires on whenever it occurs, so its self-healing. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
