On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:21:41AM +1000, Rob Weir wrote: > Yup. Reason #23131 why CR is a poor solution. I'm quite amazed at how > well SA and simple checks like my Postfix body regexp work. I still get > spam, and oodles of it, but it's almost flawlessly classified. I check > out my spam folders every few days, and I've found perhaps five false > positive in the past...3 months, more? False negatives are a smallish > issue, but almost everything that gets through is either too small for > bayesian to work effectively, or CJK spam that I can't even read.
I'm on a "the perfect is the enemy of the good" kick these days, so I understand your happiness with what SpamAssassin is doing. But I guess spam bothers me so deeply that I feel ONE distraction is equivalent to ONE THOUSAND distractions -- I still have to peform the mental operations: (1) Check Mail, (2) Scan Mail for distractions, (3) Delete distractions. (3) is not the primary pain point for me; (2) is. So I'm on a quest for zero-spam solutions. My current idea is disposable email addys; if I can go ten days on a list mail or two months for a friends/family email, I'm okay with that. I track who has what and send out update notices (or rejoin lists) when I change; note the date encoded in my addy. I haven't scripted it yet, but I could. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]