On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 07:56 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote: > I wrote: > > Actually, I find that SA's Bayesian engine is pretty good at > spotting > > the random text they put in most image spam. With a few extra points > for > > technical stuff, most of it goes directly to the spam folder, and > the > > rest to the "unsure" folder with fairly high scores. > > "Aaron Konstam" replied: > > I guess I have to point this out with a little bit of trepidation. > But > > if you have an unsure folder you are probably using SpamBayes not > > Spamassassin. > > No, it's *definitely* SpamAssassin. I used to use SpamBayes, and I > brought the concept with me to SpamAssassin. I sort into "unsure", > "spam", and my normal mailboxes through procmail based on the > SpamAsssassin score. > > And I *do* think an "unsure" folder is a Good Thing. The downside, of > course, is a folder I must manually check. The aim is to keep it > empty. > But the *first* thing you should know when you want to filter spam is > that no system can be perfect. There will be spam that gets around all > the rules (yes, even DNS lists, if you happen to be first on a spam > run) > and there will be non-spam that looks spammy. An "unsure" box is a > Pretty Good Way of getting that uncertainty into one place where you > can > keep an eye on it. > Well I guess I can accuse you of being hypnotized by the SpamBayes people who also think the unsure folder is a good thing. Well in my opinion it is not. What is good about having an extra folder to check for spam and ham? Nothing I would say. But we Linux people believe in each persons individual freedom to make mistakes -:) -- ======================================================================= A fool and your money are soon partners. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
