On Saturday 10 January 2004 11:23 am, Richard Urwin wrote: > > I have to question that. I know it's better known, but I get far > > better rates under POPFile than I did when I tried SA. POPFile > > functions typically at 99.87% accuracy. I don't think you can better > > that. > > That's a very impressive number, but I don't see what POPFile does that SA > doesn't. You do need to train SA, and it doesn't start using Bayesian > analysis until it's database has 200 messages in. I don't have any > experience of how easy, hard or accurate this bit of SA is. I run it at > work, but the setup precludes training the Bayesian bit.
I don't really rely on bayesian filters at all, I let the DNS blocklists do the power filtering and just let the body filters catch the stuff coming from brand new sources. I don't have particular numbers but on average, I get 800 spam mails per week through my system and of those, maybe 1 false negative hits the inbox. -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
