On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 22:22, Mattias Eriksson wrote: > > For the actual spam detection, I think we should just use Spamassassin. > > It works great, is actively maintained, and is very simple to interface > > to. It also does a great job without any training, although it does > > support Bayesan filtering. > > I don't think spamassasin is the best solution. It is slow and I don't > think it "just works". When I used spamassasin with evoluiton a lot of > spam got passed the filter. I then tried bogofilter which is just a > bayesian filter and got better results when I had fed it the same > ammount of mails as I did with spam assasin.
This is about the opposite experience I've had. :) What version of Spamassassin are you using, and do you have the network tests enabled? On my machine the impact of running Spamassassin while downloading POP mail is negligible. -- Ettore _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
