> From: Kelson Vibber [mailto:k...@tollfreeforwarding.com] > > ...omissis... > > If so, would you recommend: > 1. Sticking with SA's Bayesian filter? > 2. Running SpamAssassin without Bayes, then James' BayesianAnalysis > mailet? > 3. Running James's BayesianAnalysis mailet first, then SpamAssassin > without Bayes?
This is interesting: I looked at James some years ago for a project of mine, but it looked yet a bit immature for production to me. Things are surely evolved then. I don't have any direct experience with it, so I can only guess a good interaction between it and SA. That said, I would suggest to not decouple bayes from SA, since I wouldn't see any advantage in this approach and you would rather miss the a bayes score from the SA totals. You would end having more FPs due to the bayesian mailer running apart and needing special score thresholds in SA. I would also suggest to avoid using amavisd and the like to run SA tests: that application supplies some message routing schemes which are really useful with "simple" mail exchangers, but that may complicate things a lot with a mailet-based design. I would suggest to use spamd instead. Also, to complete the system, I recall there were some AV-mailets at the age. If possible use them before SA to catch message carrying viruses. > In case it makes a difference, we're running James 2.3 with > the SpamAssassin mailet backported from 3.0, and we'll be > using a sitewide database (at least to begin with). > > Thanks in advance, > > Kelson Vibber > TollFreeForwarding.com, Development Good luck, Giampaolo
