On Friday 12 December 2003 22:09, Kelson Vibber wrote: > On Friday 12 December 2003 9:29 pm, John Andersen wrote: > > So feeding this already-automatically-detected-spam to razor is > > going to do NOTHING for his over-all spam detection, because all he is > > doing is training razor to recognize spam that has already been > > recognized as spam by some other Spamassassin tests. Its not going to > > help him at all. > > But it *is* going to help *other* people who are relying on Razor and don't > use SpamAssassin - or who have SA configured differently.
Perhaps true, but that was not the focus of the Oringnal Posters question which had to do with the low detection rate of Razor. One has to ask why bother with razor if it must be fed by the more successful spam detection agents. Those agents will always be better than razor if razor relies on them for its reporting. The original intent of Razor was that someone would look at each piece of spam and report it thru razor if it was indeed spam. Vipul specifically discouraged automated means of detection. Yet I suspect automated reporting is now the norm. Is this low 15% detection rate perhaps caused by the automated reporting? -- _____________________________________ John Andersen ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
