On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Bob George wrote: > You didn't really tell us HOW you use spamassasin. > > Just as with a single site-wide bayes, there are possible problems > adjusting site-wide rules, depending on what some users consider > spam, or non-spam. I get lots of messages that fail one or more of > the tests you mentioned, but that I still want for one reason or > another. I'd be very annoyed if someone arbitrarily blocked them > "for me". > > So yes it might work fine, but you might also get some complaints > if "semi-spammy" messages get tossed. What are you doing with > flagged messages anyhow? If you're just tagging them, probably no > big deal. I wouldn't set any one rule to make the final call in > any case, unless this is a personal setup. > > Are your users set up with personal configurations? Are you using > site-wide bayes? Are you enforcing a corporate policy of some > sort? Do you want "easy" or "accurate"?
Thanks for the reply. I guess I'm looking for some sort of compromise between easy and accurate. I do NOT have a site-wide bayes setup. My users can adjust their own procmail setups allowing or denying specific addresses/subjects before the messages get to Spamassassin. They also have the ability to toss or just mark spam. My attitude toward some of the scores are that if a site is listed in a spam database like spamcop, njabl or sorbs, that should be the end of it, but I understand that a site can be used as a relay without the knowledge of the webmaster, and can get listed before the webmaster can plug the hole. But knowing that I'm a neophyte at this, I'm sure it's not that black and white. --pat-- -- Pat Traynor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
