Re: Which spam filter do you use?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 00:23:06 AM +0200, Eyolf Østrem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So, should I switch? I'm quite happy with bogo, especially with the current setup with some macros I borrowed from an article in linux journal (I think it was), but I would very much like to hear what your experiences are in this respect. Besides some MTA-level filtering, I am using bogo instead of spamassassin because of one simple reason: lack of maintenance. I've read several times that SA rules must be constantly updated and added, otherwise they get half-useless every few weeks. Is this still true? Bogofilter, in any case, _does_ let a few spam go through every day. But once you have installed it and integrated it with Mutt, procmail, whatever, it just works by itself. Upgrading SA can be automated, of course, but is one more thing that must work fine all the time, so I still prefer the other approach: 2/3 minutes every day to retrain bogofilter on missed spam (via mutt macros and scripts, of course) versus keeping a constant eye on what's happening in the SA world. Of course, if one has to set things up for many people is an entirely different story. One thing I plan to do some day, when I have time, is to try something I've read online: install _another_ bayesian filter and run it from procmail _only_ on those messages which bogofilter classified as almost spam. This would minimize resource consumption, as the lighter filter is enough to trap almost everything, but increase accuracy while still being zero-maintenance or so. HTH, Marco -- The one book on software and digital technologies that no parent or teacher can ignore: http://digifreedom.net/node/84
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
0n Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:06:55AM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote: On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 00:23:06 AM +0200, Eyolf Østrem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So, should I switch? I'm quite happy with bogo, especially with the current setup with some macros I borrowed from an article in linux journal (I think it was), but I would very much like to hear what your experiences are in this respect. Besides some MTA-level filtering, I am using bogo instead of spamassassin because of one simple reason: lack of maintenance. Have you got any documents describing the process of integrating bogofilter with mutt ? -aW IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Australian Defence Organisation and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the CRIMES ACT 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, October 5 at 08:06 AM, quoth M. Fioretti: Besides some MTA-level filtering, I am using bogo instead of spamassassin because of one simple reason: lack of maintenance. I've read several times that SA rules must be constantly updated and added, otherwise they get half-useless every few weeks. Is this still true? Bah; SpamAssassin is the swiss-army-knife of spam filters. It includes a bayesian filter (not to mention things like razor and dcc, which are constantly up-to-date), and as such, does not require updating the rules. Updating the rules can *help*, but it is not required to continue functioning at a reasonably high level. The real criticism I'd level against SpamAssassin as compared to bogofilter is that SpamAssassin's bayesian classifier is relatively simple. To my knowledge, it doesn't tokenize word-pairs and phrases, but just single words; thus, something that uses more advanced bayesian techniques (I presume bogofilter fits this description?) may well beat it at that particular game---which is where updating the rules can help as a compensating factor. It's not like a virus-scanner where an out-of-date database is worthless. ~Kyle - -- Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. -- Pericles (430 BC) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iD8DBQFHBeLqBkIOoMqOI14RAquVAJ9sG8NsvhJdHB1qCJdab6Xh2/fczwCggME0 FGk2+Rbq8wVY/Rleab56KhI= =kjny -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 07:56:44 AM +0200, Christian Kuka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At the moment I'm using bogofilter, razor, pyzor, dcc, spamassassin and clamassassin and the following procmail rules: This (cascading several filters, lightest to heaviest) is what inmy other reply I said I'd like to try someday. Do you have any _measure_ of how better it is wrt a bogofilter-only setup? Something like bogo alone stops 80% of spam, razor 80% of bogo missed, SA 80% of what is still left etc. Thanks, Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 14:25:43 PM +0800, Wilkinson, Alex wrote: Have you got any documents describing the process of integrating bogofilter with mutt ? I just used these: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6439 http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7436 Another approach, valid also on Imap and compatible with webmail, is to just move all the spam missed by bogofilter in a predefined with a macro, and then have a cron shell script which runs the same bogofilter command of those mutt macros on each file in that directory and then remove the files. HTH, Marco -- The Family Guide to Digital Freedom: http://digifreedom.net/node/99
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
* On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 M. Fioretti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 14:25:43 PM +0800, Wilkinson, Alex wrote:
Another approach, valid also on Imap and compatible with webmail, is
to just move all the spam missed by bogofilter in a predefined with a
macro,
When imap is involved sieve really is the way to go.
e.g.
# spam level 5 * or more
if header :contains X-Spam-Level * {
fileinto INBOX/spam;
stop;
}
HTH,
Michael
--
Excusing bad programming is a shooting offence, no matter _what_ the
circumstances.
-- Linus Torvalds, to the linux-kernel list
PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC1A44DD
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
On 05.10.2007 (02:08), Kyle Wheeler wrote: On Friday, October 5 at 08:06 AM, quoth M. Fioretti: Besides some MTA-level filtering, I am using bogo instead of spamassassin because of one simple reason: lack of maintenance. I've read several times that SA rules must be constantly updated and added, otherwise they get half-useless every few weeks. Is this still true? Bah; SpamAssassin is the swiss-army-knife of spam filters. It includes a bayesian filter (not to mention things like razor and dcc, which are constantly up-to-date), and as such, does not require updating the rules. Updating the rules can *help*, but it is not required to continue functioning at a reasonably high level. The real criticism I'd level against SpamAssassin as compared to bogofilter is that SpamAssassin's bayesian classifier is relatively simple. To my knowledge, it doesn't tokenize word-pairs and phrases, but just single words; thus, something that uses more advanced bayesian techniques (I presume bogofilter fits this description?) may well beat it at that particular game---which is where updating the rules can help as a compensating factor. It's not like a virus-scanner where an out-of-date database is worthless. So this does in fact mean that without that extra time tending the rules, SA may actually let more spam through? It's not that I'm dissatisfied with my current situation. My #1 concern is actually with false negatives; I've since long given up browsing through the CapturedSpam folder to check for them before I delete everything. I haven't had any complaints from people who think I neglect them (unless the complaints also end up in the filter...), but in one comparison I read, it seemed that SA had absolutely 0 of that, whereas bogo might have one or two (out of I don't remember how many thousand). All in all, it may not be such a bad thing; if there IS some mail I haven't answered but should have, I can always say sorry, never got your mail, it must have been trapped in the filter. I'd hate to lose that excuse... :-) eyolf -- And 1.1.81 is officially BugFree(tm), so if you receive any bug-reports on it, you know they are just evil lies. (By Linus Torvalds, [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
hi, Eyolf ?strem wrote: I've been using bogofilter ever since I first installed KDE/Kmail and the potentially hassle-free configuration of SpamAssassin led to constant crashes. I belive it has been solved by now, and in any case Kmail is ancient history, but I was wondering what experiences the list people have with various filters. we're using qsf (http://www.ivarch.com/programs/qsf/) which i personaly find perfect. moreover it's fast so we can use it on our mail server without any problems (tried spamassassin, spambayes with bad excerience). -- fuf ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
* Eyolf Østrem [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-05 13:22]: On 05.10.2007 (02:08), Kyle Wheeler wrote: The real criticism I'd level against SpamAssassin as compared to bogofilter is that SpamAssassin's bayesian classifier is relatively simple. Yes. Also, SpamAssassin is terribly slow. To my knowledge, it doesn't tokenize word-pairs and phrases, but just single words; thus, something that uses more advanced bayesian techniques (I presume bogofilter fits this description?) may well beat it at that particular game---which is where updating the rules can help as a compensating factor. It's not like a virus-scanner where an out-of-date database is worthless. So this does in fact mean that without that extra time tending the rules, SA may actually let more spam through? Yes, even if you do take that time :-) From my experience, which includes few benchmarks I did, Bogofilter's accuracy is way better than SpamAssassin's, even if enabling SpamAssassin's bayesian classifier, Razor, and a few other non-default modules. Bogofilter's accuracy highly depends on good training, though. It's critical to not only train Bogofilter with misclassified messages but also with messages it's unsure about. Fine-tuning the configuration might also increase Bogofilter's accuracy[*]. IMO, SpamAssassin is only useful if you don't want or cannot train your spam filter for some reason (e.g., if you're an ISP, though in this case SpamAssassin's bad performance can be a real drawback). It's not that I'm dissatisfied with my current situation. My #1 concern is actually with false negatives; I've since long given up browsing through the CapturedSpam folder to check for them before I delete everything. So you mean false positives :-) In any case, any serious spam filter allows for adjusting the spam/ham thresholds, so you can always buy redrucing the number of false positives to almost zero at the cost of increasing the number of false negatives. SpamAssassin's default configuration does just that (which makes sense, of course). it seemed that SA had absolutely 0 of that, whereas bogo might have one or two (out of I don't remember how many thousand). Depends on the configuration. Holger [*] You could try bogotune(1) and/or increasing multi-token-count, though this increases the database size and decreases Bogofilter's performance. It _should_ increase Bogofilter's accuracy, though for me it had far less effect than described in the following posting (mainly because I get better results with multi-token-count=1 than described in the posting): http://www.bogofilter.org/pipermail/bogofilter-dev/2006-August/003357.html
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
* M. Fioretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-05 08:19]: On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 07:56:44 AM +0200, Christian Kuka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At the moment I'm using bogofilter, razor, pyzor, dcc, spamassassin and clamassassin and the following procmail rules: This (cascading several filters, lightest to heaviest) is what inmy other reply I said I'd like to try someday. Do you have any _measure_ of how better it is wrt a bogofilter-only setup? Something like bogo alone stops 80% of spam, razor 80% of bogo missed, SA 80% of what is still left etc. I did that myself for quite some time, but note that while this of course reduces the number of false negatives, it also increases the number of false positives, so you won't necessarily increase the global accuracy with such a setup. Giving useful _measures_ is really hard though as they will heavily depend on the configuration/training of the filters and of course also on the actual mail corpus they operate on. Holger
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 02:08:26 AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Bah; SpamAssassin is the swiss-army-knife of spam filters. It includes a bayesian filter (not to mention things like razor and dcc, which are constantly up-to-date), and as such, does not require updating the rules. But razor and dcc consume bandwidth, so to figure out if SA is worthwhile maybe one should ask: 0) Do I have a flat rate fast connection, where I wouldn't notice SA contactly doing network checks? 1) after the whole message has been downloaded anyway, does SA block a LOT more spam than bogofilter or qsf? if the answer is yes, (and that is quite a big if, judging from both online literature and other answers in this thread...) is the difference big enough to justify the extra CPU and/or bandwidth consumption, plus keeping the rules updated? I mean sure, SA has tons of extra non-bayesian tricks to catch spam, but if the bayesian algorithms in bogofilter or qsf catch almost all of it anyway without those extra tricks, bandwidth, cpu cycles and manual maintenance... do I need to bother (this *is* a serious question, I'm really trying to figure out if the _possibility_ to go from just 1/2 spam messages a day in my inbox to 0 is worth the extra effort)?? Of course, the answer depend on one's needs, how much mail he or she receives and much other stuff. And if one has full control of the MTA, where lots of spam can and should be recognized and blocked before ever starting SA or any other content filter. Ciao, Marco -- Help your relatives, friends and partners love Free Standards and Free Software! http://digifreedom.net/node/84
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 14:48:09 PM +0200, Michal Vitecek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: hi, Eyolf ?strem wrote: I've been using bogofilter ever since I first installed KDE/Kmail and the potentially hassle-free configuration of SpamAssassin led to constant crashes. I belive it has been solved by now, and in any case Kmail is ancient history, but I was wondering what experiences the list people have with various filters. we're using qsf (http://www.ivarch.com/programs/qsf/) which i personaly Now I've remembered! The page I mentioned earlier in the thread, where I had read of cascading different bayesian filters was centered just around bogofilter and qsf, and is this one: http://www.acme.com/mail_filtering/bayesian_frameset.html where the author also justifies why he put the filters in that particular order. It is an interesting read, and what I plan to try. HTH Marco -- Help *everybody* love Free Standards and Free Software! http://digifreedom.net
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
On 05.10.2007 (15:30), Holger Weiss wrote: * eyolf østrem [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-05 13:22]: It's not that I'm dissatisfied with my current situation. My #1 concern is actually with false negatives; I've since long given up browsing through the CapturedSpam folder to check for them before I delete everything. So you mean false positives :-) Uhm... yes... positive, negative, who's to know what's what in the long run? Anyway, thanks for all the feedback (I sortof knew when I sent it off that I'm starting a long thread here). I think I'll start by training mr bogo and ask him to be careful with those false whatever. e -- The seven eyes of Ningauble the Wizard floated back to his hood as he reported to Fafhrd: I have seen much, yet cannot explain all. The Gray Mouser is exactly twenty-five feet below the deepest cellar in the palace of Gilpkerio Kistomerces. Even though twenty-four parts in twenty-five of him are dead, he is alive. Now about Lankhmar. She's been invaded, her walls breached everywhere and desperate fighting is going on in the streets, by a fierce host which out-numbers Lankhamar's inhabitants by fifty to one -- and equipped with all modern weapons. Yet you can save the city. How? demanded Fafhrd. Ningauble shrugged. You're a hero. You should know. -- Fritz Leiber, The Swords of Lankhmar
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
* Christian Kuka [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-05 07:56]: I also read from a scanner called crm114 in the linux magazine that should be realy good, but never checked that. I use OSBF-Lua[1] which is a port of CRM114. It's a Bayesian classifier which uses a more sophisticated algorithm than Bogofilter and others, and which indeed performs even better than Bogofilter for me, regarding both classification accuracy and speed. It gives me a global accuracy of about 99.9% (about 1 out of 1000 e-mails are misclassified). Also, it learns a lot quicker than Bogofilter, usually there's no need to do any pre-training[2]. And it has far less configuration knobs to play with, which is also good :-) It just works out-of-the-box. I put the Mutt (1.5.x) macros I use for training online: ftp://ftp.in-berlin.de/pub/users/weiss/spamfilter/README.osbf4mutt ftp://ftp.in-berlin.de/pub/users/weiss/spamfilter/osbf4mutt-0.2.tar.gz Holger [1] http://osbf-lua.luaforge.net/ [2] http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~siefkes/software/trainfilter/#section_1_4
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, October 5 at 01:22 PM, quoth Eyolf Østrem: So this does in fact mean that without that extra time tending the rules, SA may actually let more spam through? As in most cases, the answer is it depends. It *may* let more spam through. In my case, I use SA for everything, and I train it on everything I can lay hands on---and have for years. I didn't notice a difference in performance (for my personal mail) when I added sa-update to the crontab. On the other hand, not everyone on my server uses the training folders, and so their spamassassin configurations don't adapt as quickly to new spam trends. That is where, on my system, updating the rules files really helps with. But everyone has different experiences. I will say, though, it is true that SpamAssassin is really slow, but not for the reason many people claim. We have a pretty standard spamc/spamd setup, and if I turn off all the network tests, it flies. But, because I find the extra tests SA performs valuable, I have it crunch through all the various DNS, DKIM, and remote-spam-database tests, which adds significantly to its average processing time. According to my logs, it takes anywhere from 4 to 16 seconds to process each message, which is pretty hefty! Then again, it's processing mail at delivery time so most folks don't notice, and it's doing it all in parallel... but because of those network tests, it's unlikely that I could improve performance significantly by putting it on a faster machine. If my email server was under heavier load, I'd probably have to look into changing my filtering setup (put SA on a different machine, boost my dns cache size, maybe add a prefilter of some kind, etc.). As for impact, it chunks through on the order of 5000 emails a day, of which over 86% is spam (according to my logs), and I think the last time I got a message that was incorrectly classified was probably... maybe a week ago, or so. Some of my users have better experiences, some worse. Usually, if one of my users complains that they're getting too much spam, it's because they haven't been using the training features. I think the real question you need to ask is: does my current spam system work sufficiently well for my taste, and what am I willing to pay to get better accuracy? ~Kyle - -- To believe in God is impossible---to not believe in him is absurd. -- Voltaire -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iD8DBQFHBkxSBkIOoMqOI14RAqP4AKCDDa6efM5yi54+HFsZHCxn1atlcQCfcHui 8QCYRTaN6F3hnUPsXpYAhj0= =211r -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, October 5 at 04:02 PM, quoth M. Fioretti: 0) Do I have a flat rate fast connection, where I wouldn't notice SA contactly doing network checks? Indeed! Not all solutions are perfect for all situations. 1) after the whole message has been downloaded anyway, does SA block a LOT more spam than bogofilter or qsf? if the answer is yes, (and that is quite a big if, judging from both online literature and other answers in this thread...) is the difference big enough to justify the extra CPU and/or bandwidth consumption, plus keeping the rules updated? Unfortunately, that's a tough one to answer. How much CPU is a spam worth? Does the answer change depending on whether you get 5 spams a day, or 5000? There's no right answer to that one, it's all personal preference. And if one has full control of the MTA, where lots of spam can and should be recognized and blocked before ever starting SA or any other content filter. That depends on what you're willing to put up with. For example, many of my users have learned to distrust things like DNS blacklists, and by extension any completely blocking spam mechanism. ANY anti-spam technique will have false-positives, and sometimes users aren't willing to put up with that, which changes the requirements of your antispam solution. ~Kyle - -- Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iD8DBQFHBk5+BkIOoMqOI14RAsN2AKDJS8mF2Fi6dMZqzB1UVJPsUdb6nwCguz69 6DlFQihv3TkWUgUxX+oJKSw= =8blO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
* Kyle Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-05 09:38]: I will say, though, it is true that SpamAssassin is really slow, but not for the reason many people claim. My claim is that spamd requires an order of magnitude more CPU and memory ressources than Bogofilter and others do. Of course, that's usually not an issue on single-user systems. We have a pretty standard spamc/spamd setup, and if I turn off all the network tests, it flies. At my workplace, for about 40.000 users, we need six dedicated servers for spamd and one which does Bogofilter and other stuff. As for impact, it chunks through on the order of 5000 emails a day, of which over 86% is spam (according to my logs), and I think the last time I got a message that was incorrectly classified was probably... maybe a week ago, or so. So you get about 1 out of 35.000 messages misclassified (which would be an accuracy of about 99.997%)? I cannot quite believe that :-) In any case, it does sound as if you do get significantly better results out of SpamAssassin than I ever did, despite a lot of tweaking I tried. I think the real question you need to ask is: does my current spam system work sufficiently well for my taste, and what am I willing to pay to get better accuracy? Yes. Holger
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, October 5 at 05:14 PM, quoth Holger Weiss: As for impact, it chunks through on the order of 5000 emails a day, of which over 86% is spam (according to my logs), and I think the last time I got a message that was incorrectly classified was probably... maybe a week ago, or so. So you get about 1 out of 35.000 messages misclassified (which would be an accuracy of about 99.997%)? I cannot quite believe that :-) In any case, it does sound as if you do get significantly better results out of SpamAssassin than I ever did, despite a lot of tweaking I tried. Well, the twist to that statistic is that not all 5000 of those emails are for *me*. I'm only one of the users on my system that uses SA (though I'm certainly the biggest user of email on the system). Based on yesterday's logs, I personally get around 10,521 emails (including spam) a week. Assuming an oversized fudge factor of maybe ten misclassified messages that I either didn't notice or don't remember, that puts my accuracy around 99.9%. I think this really does, though, boil down to: different filters do better for different people. ~Kyle - -- I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. -- Oliver Cromwell -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iD8DBQFHBly8BkIOoMqOI14RAsAUAJ9Ub6P2lQdUHXWK0aTq4EeaasKeSwCgxFfz y7saTUN2IJvuttxUNpnPWE8= =4sAa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 09:47:26 AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Friday, October 5 at 04:02 PM, quoth M. Fioretti: 0) Do I have a flat rate fast connection, where I wouldn't notice SA contactly doing network checks? Indeed! Not all solutions are perfect for all situations. Yes, that's the same thing I had said, which it applies to all the pieces of the puzzle, including this: is the difference big enough to justify the extra CPU and/or bandwidth consumption, plus keeping the rules updated? And if one has full control of the MTA, where lots of spam can and should be recognized and blocked before ever starting SA or any other content filter. That depends on what you're willing to put up with. Of course. The MTA can block many surely spammish messages (those pretending to come from inside your network, for example). At the same time, DNS blacklists as a completely blocking mechanism make sense only _if_ their maintainer is inhumanly perfect. Otherwise, it comes too often too close to censorship (when who decides what you will not receive is somebody ELSE, of course: any individual filtering exclusively his or her own mail must remain free to shoot himself in the feet). Ciao, Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depends on how software is used *around* you: http://digifreedom.net/node/84
Which spam filter do you use?
I've been using bogofilter ever since I first installed KDE/Kmail and the potentially hassle-free configuration of SpamAssassin led to constant crashes. I belive it has been solved by now, and in any case Kmail is ancient history, but I was wondering what experiences the list people have with various filters. From what I've read, bogo is quicker than the other contenders, but lets more spam through. While the speed was a concern in Kmail, since the filtering was done in the app itself, which meant that it was unresponsive for a while while the filtering was going on, that is not so much of a concern now, when that is taken care of by procmail. That leaves me with c. 10-15 spam mails a day that slip through (out of c. 150-200). So, should I switch? I'm quite happy with bogo, especially with the current setup with some macros I borrowed from an article in linux journal (I think it was), but I would very much like to hear what your experiences are in this respect. Eyolf -- Unceasing warfare gives rise to its own social conditions which have been similar in all epochs. People enter a permanent state of alertness to ward off attacks. You seethe absolute rule of the autocrat. All new things become dangerous frontier districts-new planets, new economic areas to exploit, new ideas or new devices, visitors-everything suspect. Feudalism takes firm hold, sometimes disguised as a politbureau or similar structure, but always present. Hereditary succession follows the lines of power. The blood of the powerful dominates. The vice regents of heaven or their equivalent apportion the wealth. And their know they must control inheritance or slowly let the power melt away. Now, do you understand Leto's Peace? -- The Stolen Journals
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, October 5 at 12:23 AM, quoth Eyolf Østrem: So, should I switch? I'm quite happy with bogo If you're satisfied with your current spam prevention technique, there's absolutely no reason to switch. At best, you'll get fewer spams. If the spam level you currently receive is acceptable: count your blessings. For what it's worth, all the domains I administer have used spamassassin for several years, and the accuracy is simply stunning. ~Kyle - -- Of course it's the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story. -- Margaret Thatcher -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iD8DBQFHBZHMBkIOoMqOI14RAtUbAJ91DOTtzyh1sI8hagsTxF0Y5Y0eawCgwIrI yAw6/xg2FPtkzaN8yqiijxs= =nnJ7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Which spam filter do you use?
Hi,
Thus wrote Eyolf Østrem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.10.05 06:54]:
I've been using bogofilter ever since I first installed KDE/Kmail and the
potentially hassle-free configuration of SpamAssassin led to constant
crashes. I belive it has been solved by now, and in any case Kmail is
ancient history, but I was wondering what experiences the list people
have with various filters.
At the moment I'm using bogofilter, razor, pyzor, dcc, spamassassin
and clamassassin and the following procmail rules:
-snip--
SPAM=$MAILDIR/.Junk/
VIRUS=$MAILDIR/.Virus/
DCCPROC=/usr/bin/dccproc
BOGOFILTER=/usr/bin/bogofilter
PYZOR=/usr/bin/pyzor
RAZOR=/usr/bin/razor-check
SPAMC=/usr/bin/spamc
CLAM=/usr/bin/clamassassin
:0 fw
| $BOGOFILTER -u -e -p
:0 e
{ EXITCODE=75 HOST }
:0:
* ^X-Bogosity:.(Yes|Spam)
$SPAM
# Razor
:0 Wc
| $RAZOR -conf=$HOME/.razor/razor-agent.conf
:0 Wa:
$SPAM
# Pyzor
:0 Wc
| $PYZOR check
:0 Wa:
$SPAM
# DCC
:0 fw
| $DCCPROC -ERw whiteclnt -ccmn,10
:0 e:
$SPAM
# Spamassassin
:0 fw: $PMDIR/spamassassin.db
| $SPAMC
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
$SPAM
:0 fw: $PMDIR/clamassassin.db
| $CLAM
:0:
* ^X-Virus-Status: Yes
$VIRUS
-snip--
At the moment I don't get any spam/junk mail but sometimes some mails
from mailinglists (especially from the debian list) are in the junk folder.
But I also have to say that it realy takes some time till I get a mail.
From what I've read, bogo is quicker than the other contenders, but
lets more spam through. While the speed was a concern in Kmail, since
the filtering was done in the app itself, which meant that it was
unresponsive for a while while the filtering was going on, that is not
so much of a concern now, when that is taken care of by procmail. That
leaves me with c. 10-15 spam mails a day that slip through (out of c.
150-200).
So, should I switch? I'm quite happy with bogo, especially with the
current setup with some macros I borrowed from an article in linux
journal (I think it was), but I would very much like to hear what your
experiences are in this respect.
I also read from a scanner called crm114 in the linux magazine that
should be realy good, but never checked that.
Eyolf
Christian
--
---
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x61E7150B - 4EFC 3FA6 FB8E 2BD5 CA11 6F15 F557 6B5D 61E7 150B
Christian Kuka
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
