From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Subject: Re: [9fans] tactic
From: Dave Lukes <davel@anvil.com>
To: 9fans <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20040401154757.GA96198@ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403310737130.9002-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
	 <001001c417f0$5b952f30$34fea8c0@SOMA>
	 <4227.199.98.20.223.1080832249.squirrel@wish>
	 <020501c417f5$d9622210$34fea8c0@SOMA>
	 <20040401154757.GA96198@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1080838815.17780.714.camel@zevon>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu,  1 Apr 2004 18:00:15 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4c91b276-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> They're working fine for me.  The filter adapted to the garbage
> salad at the end pretty quickly, and now it routinely drops all
> those messages in the spam trap.

Yes, but ...
1) your database(s) just keep growing
2) you're fuzzying the line a lot:
   our well tuned spamassassin scores most stuff _very_ close
   to the "non-spam" score: a difference of .1/5 (2%) in the score
   means about another 20-30 spams getting through.
   So, as you "pollute" your filter, you increase the likelihood
   of false positives/negatives.

	Dave.