So I'm loving the rules http://spamhammers.nxtek.net/ that Jennifer Wheeler wrote , but I'm up against a few (philosophical?) questions, and would like to invite discussion.
I've noticed that about 95% of the time when these rules are hit, they're listed as BAYES_99. In this case, should I even bother? I guess they ensure that the 5% that are not BAYES_99 have more of a chance of getting fed back into Bayes because of it, and that's A Good Thing. I've also considered dumping spammers at the MTA level before they are even passed to SpamAssassin, using a homebrew RBL or something. The good part of this is that it would save traffic on my Postfix/SA gateway box, then my AV box, then my mailserver (drive space here, too) itself. The bad part is that these spams would then never get learned by Bayes. I do blacklist defunct users at the Postfix level, and that actually cut my spam traffic by over 50% by itself, but again this stuff never gets learned in Bayes. Has anyone else juggled these questions? -tom ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
