On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:07:38PM -0900, John Andersen wrote: > Actually it might be either a conservative estimate OR a pesimistic one > depending on the degree of overlap in detection. For instance, > how much of SpamAssassin's catch is really Razor's catch. > Basically, I've found that SpamAssassin'e effectiveness is falling > slowly over time (even though it is using razor).
I can answer that. ;)
Stats since 2002-12-14
Scores : 0.7 18 45
Total Messages: 4237
SA Caught : 4116 (97.1 %)
Razor Caught : 3189 (75.3 %)
Razor Not SA : 1 (0.0 %)
Razor Cause SA: 90 (2.1 %)
So for me at least, 2.1% of my SA catches are caused by Razor's help.
The other 95% are caught by SA alone. And yes, that number is dropping
over time as spammers change how they send their stuff. That's why
there's always new versions of SA in development. It's a cat and mouse
game. ;)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Because . doesn't match \n. [\0-\377] is the most efficient way to match
everything currently. Maybe \e should match everything. And \E would
of course match nothing. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
msg00532/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
