From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: why does reiserfs list get so much spam? Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:54:02 -0500 Message-ID: <432B22DA.6040107@slaphack.com> References: <432A9BFD.10700@mch.one.pl> <20050916104129.GA11025@kruemel> <432AA409.5070006@interia.pl> <432AAA38.9000102@mch.one.pl> <432B0DD0.80206@slaphack.com> <432B0FAC.4050905@mch.one.pl> <432B143B.8030808@slaphack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Mierzwa?= Cc: "reiserfs-list@namesys.com" =A3ukasz Mierzwa wrote: > Dnia Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:51:39 +0200, David Masover = > napisa=B3: >=20 >> Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >> >>> David Masover schrieb: >>> >>> (...) >>> >>>>> If You will look in the headers of messages that You get from this=20 >>>>> list >>>>> You will see that there is spamassassin running on thebsh.namesys.com, >>>>> it's just that it is not configured good enough. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can spamassassin be configured "good" enough? >>>> >>>> I use dspam: >>>> >>>> http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam/ >>>> >>>> There are some articles about why dspam has a fundamentally better >>>> design than spamassassin, and why in general statistical filters beat >>>> manual-rule-based ones like spamassassin. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah spamassassin can work extremely well. >>> >>> I guess these articles are based on the quality of spamassassin which >>> checks spam from this list? :) >>> >>> And it's not really true that spamassassin is a manual-rule-based filter >>> only. >> >> >> Right, but the statistical/learning component of spamassassin is just >> that -- a component, to be combined with razor/pyzor, manual rules, and >> anything else they can think of. I think dspam does a much better job >> at being a statistical filter, and that's all it does -- and that's all >> it needs to. Some people have reported 99.997% accuracy from dspam, >> beating humans. >> >> Anyway, the articles are about the principle of the thing. A >> statistical filter will beat a manual one every time, because it's >> faster and better at coming up with rules, and you don't need to update >> your definitions to start filtering the new spam -- just train on two or >> three mails, and you're done. >> >=20 > SpamAssassin uses bayes so You don't need any definitions for SA to=20 > detect new spam, it learns itself if message have enough points. > All You have to do is learn SA with sa-learn after instaling. Getting way offtopic, but I'll bite anyway. All I have to do is 'dspam --error', and not nearly as often as I had to=20 do with Spamassassin. And it trains itself on new emails, just like=20 Spamassassin. It's just much more accurate.