From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [9fans] tactic From: Dave Lukes To: 9fans <9fans@cse.psu.edu> In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1080865608.1815.220.camel@rea> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 01:26:48 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4d8499c8-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 First, don't get me wrong: I'm NOT a spamassassin fan, BUT ... it's the best I've seen, and I've got ~80 people to keep happy. > I find that spamassassin sucked rocks for filtering my email. Yeah, it probably did: I've never tried it but I'm sure it's uneconomical for small workloads. > I am currently using CRM114: http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ Nice, but ... > The drawback is that you have to train it before it works very > well. In the beginning it's about 50%, but after the first week > or two it has been well above 98% for me. And most of the usage I've seen has been on small, low-volume connections. i.e. even more than spamassassin it probably works better in single-mbox situations. OTOH out-of-the-box spamassassin does~~~80%, and we've got it up to ~96% (one server for all 80 people), which is deemed acceptable by the powers that be. If I tuned it a bit more wrt rbls etc. & did the per-user profile stuff I'm sure I could hit 99%. (The only negative there is that the per-user stuff is vulnerable to forgery:-(.) > It usually miss classifies > a few messages out of about 150+/day for me. I should note that > 3/4 of my email is actually SPAM, so I'm pretty happy with it. Strangely, we're only getting ~55% crap at the moment. Maybe 'cos I bounce (not can) spam? Back to plan9 programming ..., Dave.