On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 13:31, Tony Godshall wrote:
> According to S.D.A.,
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:18:53AM -0700 or thereabouts, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > S.D.A. wrote:
> > > > I agree. I switched from SA several months ago, and am quite happy with the
> > > > speed, accuracy of Spamprobe over S
Tony Godshall wrote:
> So I switched to CRM114's mailfilter.
> But given SA's framework-of-methods methodology perhaps a
> better approach would have been to integrate the better
> learning filter into SA.
That is something they should have done in the first place. On the other
hand one thin
According to S.D.A.,
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:18:53AM -0700 or thereabouts, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > S.D.A. wrote:
> > > I agree. I switched from SA several months ago, and am quite happy with the
> > > speed, accuracy of Spamprobe over Spam Assassin.
> >
> > I think this thread has shown tha
Brian Nelson wrote:
> The scoring in more recent versions of spamassassin is generated using a
> genetic algorithm that finds the optimal success rate while keeping
> false positives to a minimum. It's not something I'd mess with lightly,
> unless you really know what you're doing.
How does t
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> S.D.A. wrote:
>> I agree. I switched from SA several months ago, and am quite happy with the
>> speed, accuracy of Spamprobe over Spam Assassin.
>
> I think this thread has shown that many people have a gross misconception
> on how SpamAssassin works an
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:18:53AM -0700 or thereabouts, Steve Lamb wrote:
> S.D.A. wrote:
> > I agree. I switched from SA several months ago, and am quite happy with the
> > speed, accuracy of Spamprobe over Spam Assassin.
>
> I think this thread has shown that many people have a gross miscon
S.D.A. wrote:
> I agree. I switched from SA several months ago, and am quite happy with the
> speed, accuracy of Spamprobe over Spam Assassin.
I think this thread has shown that many people have a gross misconception
on how SpamAssassin works and how it is fundimentally different than the
alte
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:50:46AM +0100 or thereabouts, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2004, Antony wrote:
> For many months now I've been using spamprobe, which I find better than
> spamassassin. Easy to set up and not more than one or two false
> negatives a day; no false positives at all
On 16 Jun 2004, Antony wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm using spamassassin 2.63 in unstable. In the last month or two, much
> more spam seems to get through. Here's an example:
>
> >From fetchmail Wed Jun 16 11:36:56 2004
> Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received:
On Wednesday 16 June 2004 04:45, Antony wrote:
> Hi all,
>[ big snip]
>
> Is there anything that I can do about this? I know about training it,
> but doesn't that need thousands of messages to work?
>
> A
Yes, training spamassassin requires thousands of messages to work, both ham
messages and sp
On 6/18/04 7:22 AM, "Antony" wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using spamassassin 2.63 in unstable. In the last month or two,
much
more spam seems to get through.
>>> [snip]
>>> I was just thinking I would have to
>>> learn how to use SA, and now you tell me that might not be muc
I took a look at this, very promising. I've just installed it, and if
it works well, I'll create a Debian package. Install is easy enough,
although a package is always nice.
This would be great! Please keep us up2date here...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsub
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:45:07AM +0100, Antony wrote:
> I'm using spamassassin 2.63 in unstable. In the last month or two, much
> more spam seems to get through. Here's an example:
I don't know if it's feasible in your case, but have you considered the
SA 3.0 prerelease package in experimental
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:00:21PM +0100, Siraj 'Sid' Rakhada wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:27:36 -0400, richard lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 16 June 2004 06:45, Antony wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm using spamassassin 2.63 in unstable. In the last month or two,
>
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:27:36 -0400, richard lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 16 June 2004 06:45, Antony wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm using spamassassin 2.63 in unstable. In the last month or two,
> > much
> >
> > more spam seems to get through.
> [snip]
> I was just thinking I
On Wednesday 16 June 2004 06:45, Antony wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm using spamassassin 2.63 in unstable. In the last month or two,
> much
>
> more spam seems to get through.
Yes, there has obviously been new advice going out from spam central.
My primitive filtering system in kmail used to catch
Hi all,
I'm using spamassassin 2.63 in unstable. In the last month or two, much
more spam seems to get through. Here's an example:
>From fetchmail Wed Jun 16 11:36:56 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 66.179.181.35 [66.179.181.35]
by lo
17 matches
Mail list logo
