After trying most of the add-on rulesets, network tests, and other tricks, we have settled on a configuration that catches over 99% of the spam with almost no false positives, and doesn't need much tweaking. Here's what we are using:
Spamhaus SBL-XBL (at MTA level, connections refused) SA 2.63 Bayes (auto-learn and hand fed) SURBL SC,WS (the best idea since SA!) DCC two RBL checks (SPAMCOP, DSBL) tripwire.cf antidrug.cf and a small collection of local rules for the ones that slip through In my experience, if you try to push for catching 100% of the spam, the false positive rate goes up rapidly. Pierre Thomson BIC -----Original Message----- From: Frank Tore Johansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Spamassassin Tuning Hi, I've been running Spamassassin 2.63 since it came out, but lately more and more spam seems to slip by its tests. I have the following local rules: 99_FVGT_Tripwire.cf chickenpox.cf nov2rules.cf weedsonly.cf backhair.cf evilnumbers.cf oct03_headers.cf bigevil.cf local.cf oct03_rules.cf evilnumbers.cf, bigevil.cf, backhair.cf and chickenpox.cf is updated nightly. I personally get around 520 spam pr day, and with a required hits of 3, an average of 4 gets through every day. A colleague of mine uses a required hits of 5, and the last few day around 40 of 300 spams has gotten through spamassassin for him. We both regularly train our bayesian filters with all the spam that gets through. Basically, I'm looking for more tuning tips. Is there any other great ruleset that I should try out? How low do you dare set your required_hits? (Yes, I have whitelisted most common important emails, but not all). I haven't tried SURBL yet, could this help greatly? -Frank.
