On 09 Mar 2004, Andrew Schulman wrote: > > > I don't know anything about spamprobe. I think one reason people like > > > spamassassin is that it has a mix of heuristic and learning (Bayesian) > > > rules. And you can add your own rules to the list, based on regular > > > expressions. > > > > Spamprobe is a Bayesian filter too. > > Right-- just to say that SpamAssassin has both. Maybe Spamprobe does, > too. Honestly, as someone who was looking around a few months ago for a > spam filter, I found it pretty hard to tell the difference among them. > There are at least a dozen of them, with similar names, and similar > features. They all do Bayesian filtering. So I didn't care much; I > just grabbed SpamAssassin, and it works fine for me, so I'm done with > that problem. > > So if they're all the same, why did I get SpamAssassin? >Name recognition, I guess. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes. that was my reason for introducing this subthread. In the past I tried spamassassin, bogofilter, spamprobe, and mailfilter (which I couldn't get to work). I found spamprobe to be the best of these, at least for me. Some correspondents on the spamprobe mailing list report using both spamprobe and spamassassin, but I don't find a need for this. Anthony -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] || http://www.acampbell.org.uk using Linux GNU/Debian || for book reviews, electronic Windows-free zone || books and skeptical articles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]