T> Any reason why you're not using POPFile? I've been getting a few of T> this type of spam, and POPFile is correctly identifying them all as T> spam.
There has been some talk about Popfile on this forum, so I thought I would comment. I have given up on Popfile after an unnaceptable number of crucial false positives, very slow system responses, and a lot of work to train. Some of the statistics we hear (99.5% sorting efficiency) is distorted by the a priori probability (ie, 95% efficiency would be achieved by simply sorting mailing lists, and from known addresses, so 99.9% really represents 98% or so - meaning that a lot of the not-easily-sorted mail is lost. Mark ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
