"Chris Norman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > If the email domains behind ASSP have significantly different HAM, > wouldn't that result in a muddled SPAM database? Probably. But I think the concept is that in the grand scheme of things, the majority of SPAM should/will be blocked through all the connection checks, and the Bayesian is more of a last-resort measure.
> Under this implementation, would ASSP then maintain separate > SPAM/HAM/WL/etc. for each? Not a bad idea. Although we already batted around the idea of a seperated WL on a per domain basis a couple of weeks ago, and I think the general consensus was that a single WL seems to work even for multiple domains & thousands of users. I don't disagree that it would, at the very least, be a nice feature to have. Probably one on a very long list of "cool" features to add to ASSP. > I run four ASSP instances on separate IPs pointing back to a single MTA > instance (Merak). In this way, each domain has its own settings. I > used to have all the domains on one ASSP instance I must say its > effectiveness improved when I divided it up. No longer was one person's > HAM arriving in someone else's mailbox as SPAM. Wow - that's a significant IP cost just to have seperate SpamDBs. How much mail do you figure is caught by Bayesian that is missed by everything else? Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
