>> On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 11:56 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote:
>>> jdow wrote:
>>>> Besides, WTF good is Bayes with image spam?
>>> Actually, I find that SA's Bayesian engine is pretty good at spotting
>>> the random text they put in most image spam. With a few extra points for
>>> technical stuff, most of it goes directly to the spam folder, and the
>>> rest to the "unsure" folder with fairly high scores.
>>>
>>> James.
>> I guess I have to point this out with a little bit of trepidation. But
>> if you have an unsure folder you are probably using SpamBayes not
>> Spamassassin.
>
> Thanks for saying it for me. {^_-} Bayes alone is a bicycle with one pedal.
> Add some rules and DNS tests and you go from "unsure" to "pretty darned
> sure" - at the level of one in a thousand or so. Add FuzzyOCR and you
> step up from coaster brakes to caliper brakes. A fully loaded SpamAssassin
> is to a mere SpamBayes as a top of the line multi-speed bicycle is to
> a broken down beach cruiser with one pedal broken off. SpamBayes has its
> uses if one lives on an Internet Beach, I suppose. It make it look to the
> locals like you get some exercise even if it can't go anywhere.
>
> {^_-}
>
Correct me if I'm wrong but SpamBayes can be run with little effort in a pop/imap proxy setup while you can't do that with
SpamAssassin (at least, as I understand SpamAssassin is when you are running your own mail server where SpamAssassin can filter out
incoming mail but it's fairly useless when your a client connecting to a mail server that does a poor job or no spam filtering)? If
I'm wrong please correct me as I also like what SpamAssassin has to offer and it /does/ seem to offer more that SpamBayes but it's
certainly not obvious (at least to me) how to use it as a client side spam buster as opposed to the server side.
Kevin
