From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-2?B?o3VrYXN6IE1pZXJ6d2E=?= Subject: Re: why does reiserfs list get so much spam? Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:51:38 +0200 Message-ID: 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: <432B143B.8030808@slaphack.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"; charset="iso-8859-1" To: David Masover Cc: "reiserfs-list@namesys.com" Dnia Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:51:39 +0200, David Masover na= pisa=B3: > Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >> David Masover schrieb: >> >> (...) >> >>>> If You will look in the headers of messages that You get from this 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. > SpamAssassin uses bayes so You don't need any definitions for SA to detect = new spam, it learns itself if message have enough points. All You have to do is learn SA with sa-learn after instaling.