> Hi. I've installed Razor, and I'm trying to get a sense for > how well it works. > > I've taken some sample spam from http://www.em.ca/~bruceg/spam/. > I ran razor-check on 519 sample spams from April 7th, and only > four ( < 1% ) were detected: > > --snip-- > bash-2.05b$ for f in 108136*; do razor-check $f; if [ "$?" == "0" ]; > then echo $f; fi; done > 1081366364.21172_100.txt > 1081366421.21172_304.txt > 1081366444.21309_120.txt > 1081366504.21309_677.txt > bash-2.05b$ ls 108136* | wc > 519 519 12837 > --snip-- > > > Am I missing something? Thanks. >
I don't think so. I believe that if the users of SpamAssassin would take the 2 minutes to configure razor-report you might be able to achieve >>80% detection ratio in a matter of days. However, since most people who use SpamAssassin don't take the time to RTFM they just assume that someone else is running razor-report correctly and don't pay it any attention. The point is if everyone who used razor-check also used razor-report then it would be _much_ better in performance than what you might see today. For me, since it's such low overhead, I report everything as spam and only check the one's that I am uncertain of. However, I do not use SpamAssassin at all. Using a different local spam detection engine and reporting back to razor should give SpamAssassin some extra benefit. But without people actively using razor-report, the impact will be limited. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
