I assign a value of 30 to bayes and I never let an email to be blocked on Bayes alone. I would have a ton of false positives. Bayes filters implementations are different one from the other. I believe one of the best is CRM114 (that I do not use in its original incarnation), but that I've been told is used in the Eudora client application. Even it has some false positives (but really rare)
Thus concluding that nothing is perfect in the world, I use spambomb to complement ASSP functionality. I assure you that me ASSP server's performance is much better with my ton of spambomb regex than without it. Thus spambombs are a good additional resource. Spambombs is what I see as ASSP own version of spamassassin (with the vantages of the proxy features of ASSP before receiving the entire e-mail etc. etc.) More small sums etc, is the philosophy of spamassassin. It is good idea. The entire ASSP structure also is a lot of small sums (all the valences etc). I only mentioned spamassassin in order to be fair with them and not pretend it was my own conception.. Hilário Fochi Silveira At 16:47 2009-08-24, you wrote: >ASSP development mailing list <[email protected]> >schreibt: > >Hi my reasons are: > >- More small sums added gives more reliability > >and less false positives than a large amount > >added just once. Thus more files, more reliability. > > >Therefore we have Bayesian. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Assp-test mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
