On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:16:43PM +0200, Steve wrote: > > > > > > If you looking for something that is beyond just being better then I > > > recommend CRM114 or DSPAM or OSBF-Lua. If you insist in having the AV > > > included in the Anti-Spam tool then use something like DSPAM. > > > > I'd consider those as "engines". You can run one or all of them if you > > really want. MailScanner, Amavisd-new, Mimedefang and even SA (as a > > framework) are some of the "glues" that might utilize them. > > > > Well.... those so called "engines" can run on their own. They don't need > to be wrapped inside any of the "glues" you mention. Especially not when > those "glues" are memory hogs.
Can you be more specific? Maybe you are addressing SA memory usage, which might only matter on some cases. Servers have lots of memory these days, and good MTA checks might reduce scanning needs greatly. > > Generally DSPAM etc require user interaction/learning. > > > So does CRM114 and OSBF-Lua. But you are wrong in thinking that they need > an insane amount of training/learning. That's what I meant with "etc". I did use DSPAM exclusively for few months in the past, but for my personal use I saw no benefits from it. > > SA does not, since > > it's a framework of rules and plugins and can autolearn Bayes if you want > > to > > - or even do the same for DSPAM etc if you use them as SA plugins. Let's > > not > > forget that DSPAM etc also require a database backend, > > > > You are WRONG. DSPAM does NOT require a database backend. I don't know > where you have that from? DSPAM MIGHT use a database backend but can run > well without one (using the Hash driver). So you don't consider the CSS Hash driver a "database backend"? It requires disk, memory and CPU to store and retrieve tokens. Whatever.. > > which might require > > lots of memory and/or disk, so it's not exactly "free" either. Accuracy > > depends heavily on configuration of all the components and other voodoo. > > > > What? Voodoo? Yeah right. There is less voodoo in CRM114, OSBF-Lua and DSPAM > then in SA. I explain a user the following: > * you get mail and if it is wrongly classified by the Anti-Spam filter then > you correct it and the filter will learn. > * the wrong classification is done based on YOUR prior classification you > have feed to the Anti-Spam filter. > * if you feed wrong data to the Anti-Spam filter then the filter will make > errors. > * the more you correct the higher the accuracy gets and you need less and > less to correct errors. > > That's easy to understand. > > > IMHO it is easier to explain then telling the user: > * there is an army of rule writers out there that is writing rules for SA > where THEY are telling what is spam and what is ham. > > And if the user asks me: what rules are that? > Then I would need to say that there are a gazillion of rules that I can not > explain in detail without taking much of his time to go throw all the rules > one by one. > > Anyway... So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have user in control. I guess you don't use ANY other methods (blacklists etc) than users own statistical input, since you might have to tell your users that "THEY" though your mail was spam? > For me the three mentioned products are all better then SA because they > have a smaller memory footprint then SA and are way faster then SA and > properly set up require less maintenance and are way more accurate then > SA. Good for you. Naturally resource usage is lower, the less stuff you do. One has to balance needs against that. But let's forget the accuracy bs, there are too many variables for such generic claims to be made. You can achieve "happy users" with pretty much any tool out there if used right. I'm in a happy position to be able to reject/quarantine spam for 1000+ users without ever bothering them with it, and very rarely get any questions about mail. If I had to do it the ISP way, I might consider DSPAM, then again I see nothing against using SA (or any other tool out there). > And regarding the training: DSPAM and CRM114 offers features where you can > pre-learn so that your users are having from day one already a high > accuracy (generally above 95%) and if they re-classify the first bunch of > errors then their accuracy jumps easy over 98.x%/99.x%. In DSPAM that kind > of setup is accomplished with merged groups or classification groups or > shared groups. In CRM114 you can at run time allocate and merge as many > CSS files (one pre-trained should be enough) as you like You make it sound like statistical filters are invincible against different mail flows and pure user stupidity. > > There are no easy answers. > > > > And this is generally the field where Anti-Spam tools that do not depend > on pre-made rules are shining, because they are very adaptive. Right, like SA for example only depends on "pre-made" rules and doesn't have any statistical or realtime capabilities.. I think continuing this is pointless and a bit off-topic.
