On Thursday 04 June 2009 12:53:25 Rodd Clarkson wrote: > Sadly, I'm not feeling like being manual about this, and I guess that I > just expect my mail client to work well with the spam software and do it > for me. In the end, it's your decision. But just stop for a moment and think about what you wrote. Is it reasonable to expect any software to learn about new spam methods, which change almost on a daily basis, without any help from you. My training takes me about 3 minutes per week, if that, and in return I get greater accuracy. A good return on my effort, IMO. > After all, my mail client has a great collection of ham and > spam How does it know which is which, if you never tell it? That's all the training command does. It says "when you see one roughly like this, it's ham" and vice versa. You said that there are a few false-positives, so it needs to be told about those, for instance. > so if I can do something like it manually, then surely it can't be > hard for the spam software to do it without me having to thing about it. > > bogofilter used to work well, and I'm hoping that it can once again be > the great spam filter it was, fast and accurate. > Unless you can persuade all spam creators to stop here and now, it will not happen without your help. You need to see this as a matter of self-preservation. Anne -- New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org Just found a cool new feature? Add it to UserBase
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
