Raquel Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > All those lists you're so willing to throw away are working > for me. I run all the rule lists chickenpox and Tripwire.
This is an interesting issue, since I am also on a low-resource computing list (lots of DOS holdouts!) and they're as bedeviled by spam as the rest of us. I've noticed that the add-on rules help recognize new patterns, which is very useful for training bayes. But once bayes has the patterns, it alone is more than adequate. I'm wondering how practical it would be to "train up" a more powerful bayes system with the full boat of rules, then just transfer the bayes data files to a lower end machine. Or run the additional rules, then disable them for performance until new patterns emerge. Would there be a problem with creating a "bayes repository" and share it with others? Of course, it's a shared bayes configuration, so there'd need to be some general consensus as to what constitutes spam, etc. > It takes my poor little 466 only a few seconds to scan for > viruses and then for SA to do its work. I'd be swamped by > spam if it weren't for the extra rulesets ... as far as I can > tell from all the spam that's caught. My partner downloaded > from our server 137 spam messages yesterday, all tagged, and > two false negatives ... which I fed to sa-learn. That's the model we've discussed for the "low-end gateway" for users. Have a "smarter" machine capable of running tools such as SA do the work, then just poll for the cleaned up messages using whatever software the users want. - Bob
