I’ve been a SpamSieve user for quite some time now, and I can tell you that with each point release, Michael gets more and more accurate in what he’s doing. It even catches the latest junk where they intentionally misspell every word in the message hoping to fool basic Bayesian filters. Right now, it’s operating at about a 95% correct rate, processing between 100 and 200 messages per day (from various accounts).
I spend about 5-10 minutes every other day scanning the “spam” folder for False Positives, which is pretty easy since I sort by the “To” field, and can pick out my addresses that I know people might be using. Then a quick resort by subject picks up the rest.
All in all, out of 8,900 messages since the start of the year, it’s successfully filtered out 8500 of them, with only 20 false positives, and 9 false negatives. That’s MUCH better than me doing it myself.
And no, I don’t work for or with Michael Tsai. I’m just a very happy customer.... :)
Steve
PS: I’m getting similarly good results using SpamNet from CloudMark software on my PC (Outlook2003)
on 1/30/04 4:42 PM, Entourage:mac Talk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Kirk McElhearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, circa 1/30/2004 2:44 AM:
> Well, you're wrong. Many of the messages that Entourage marks as spam do
> come from editors, readers or other people I don't know, and many of them to
> translate into work.
It's a nice idea, but the Entourage JMF is just junk. I'd guess half of what
it marks as junk is a false positive. I turned it off. I can tell spam at a
glance and spend about two minutes a day deleting it all in batches and have
scripts that delete viruses (and much of the bunch of spam). I am going to
try SpamSieve, though.
peter
