Chris Santerre wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:54 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
"CS" == Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jake Colman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:09 AM
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Is Bayes Really Necessary?
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the rather complete set of rules that ship with SA
and which can
>> expanded with SARE, does bayes learning really help? Won't
>> the rules catch
>> pretty much everything anyway?
CS> Oh my favorite subject!!! :)
CS> NO! Bayes is not necessary. IMHO, for personal use, it
is incredible. But I
CS> feel the care of it is more difficult then your average
user would care to
CS> keep up.
CS> For site wide, I'm pretty much against it. I know
people will argue that
CS> point. I'm obviously biased towards SARE rules updated
with RDJ. And the use
CS> of URIBL.com lists. But these allow a general users, or
a sitewide install
CS> to "set and forget". Which is what we strive for, so SA
can be more widley
CS> excepted.
CS> I have a 99% filter rate without bayes. And I'm proud of that.
CS> Chris Santerre
CS> System Admin and SARE/URIBL Ninja
CS> http://www.rulesemporium.com
CS> http://www.uribl.com
I already use RDJ and the automatic updater. How do I use
URIBL? I looked
at the usage page and I undersyand that I need to create a .cf
file but how
does it access the lists?
If you are using SA 3.x, support is already included. You simply have to
create the config file, restart spamd, and *poof* way less spam.
Net::Dns is required. I forget which version. I forget a lot of stuff. What
was the question?
--Chris
Gotta stop smokin the green ;)
-Jim
