On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Peter C. Ndikuwera <[email protected]>wrote:
> SpamAssassin needs a bit of tuning and some additional rulesets before you > get it really going. Also using Bayes and training it for about a week and > on two installations (one with 100 users, another with about 500) I don't > get a single false positive. > True, it does require a bit of tuning to get it to work. I actually had about 1000 messages of ham and 3000 messages of spam. This was easy to collect through customised web mail features on roundcube. The problem i had with it was processing overheads. if you are processing 10000 messages per minute SA can add some significant overhead. There is a limit on the size to scan defined by you of course, and since most spammers know that SA can be limited by message size, they ensure messages sent are bigger than what most people would set. my previous message limits were around 50kb, i raised this to 100kb and found myself close to 500kb... scanning a 1mb message through SA takes a considerably long time, i wanted to avoid these hold up. -- Mike Of course, you might discount this possibility, but remember that one in a million chances happen 99% of the time. ------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
