no, no this is good.
They {might} adhere to standards in the future,
but the regexes help alot too.plus you can always run hyper-secure in whitelist-only mode. Jeroen van Aart wrote: > > bytehd wrote: >> This is dumb design. >> Fritz and John have it right: >> do the easy, simple-to-execute (helo checks come to mind) checking >> then, after all the OBVIOUS things are done, run Bayes. > > I agree it seems the right thing to do. But I can imagine the filtering > happening before the bayesian filter may become less and less effective. > If spammers actually got wiser and decided to have their software > obey common standards. Many of those filters do seem to depend on > spammers' software to be broken. Or did I miss something? > > Regards, > Jeroen > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > _______________________________________________ > Assp-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Replacing-the-bayesian-engine-with-DSPAM--tf3702920.html#a14101509 Sent from the assp-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
