> According to the stats on my test server, eliminating bayesian filtering > would mean at least a thirty percent increase in SPAM messages. Why do > you > think it should be dropped?
30% of spam coming thru a host able to pass graylisting, helocheck, default dnsbl and multi.surbl ? sorry, numbers are much different here. Even a simple strategy like that gives you (2006) more than 90% of spam blocked. And than you have many other tools to block the rest. so i think you mean : if i get 120 messages addressed to me, maybe 100 are spam. I can block 96 without bayes or 97 using everything + bayes. and i agree with you. Difference between 3 or 4 spam passing is a 30% increase. But at a what cost. You didn't tell me about false positives. I (and many other postmasters) have never been able to evoid false positives in bayesiang filtering. false positives are a huge cost. and my users prefer to get 100 spams that losing 1 legit mail. look it that way. Bayesian filters can give you less that 1% of increased spam detection. Is that worth the risk of losing legit mail ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
