On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 04:34:05PM +0200, Spider wrote: > You do run spamd instead of SpamAssassin directly, I hope, yes?
Of course. :) Actually, I didn't until about 3-4 months ago when I started to think about replacing spamassassin for some Bayes filtering software, hoping that it would take much less Ram and CPU than dragging in an entire perl environment, parsing thousands of rules, etc, etc. And then I found about spamd/spamc... And a few weeks ago I learnt about sa-learn[1]... I wonder what's in store next. :) //H [1] Which I find utterly useless in spamassassin. The only thing the bayes filter in spamassassin does is to nudge things it already knows is spam a little further up in the Score list. I have yet to find a spam that sneaked into my inbox which has had a high Bayes score. And considering the low additional score even letters with Bayes_90 gets (per default) I find it hard that it would end up in the $SPAM bin on the Bayes score alone. Hum, I should write a script that mined my $SPAM bin for SpamAssassin scores and do some statistics on it. Although, I bet it's already written... :) -- To segfault is human; to bluescreen moronic. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
