Frank Tore Johansen said: > > 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. > >
Hi Frank, Several of those sets are way out of date and are no longer used. The nov & oct rulesets no longer exist. The bad rules from the oct & nov sets have been removed, the good rules have been tweaked and added into more logical rulesets. You may want to review the sets available at http://www.rulesemporium.com and select some more recent sets. Backhair, Chickenpox and Weeds do not need to be downloaded nightly, these sets are basically "locked" and are considered stable. Jennifer is no longer activley updating those sets, they are good just as they are. :) I would suggest setting up SURBL on your system, then you'll be able to ditch bigevil as well (it's a pig now), the same data is available via SURBL. On my system the ws.surbl test (combines bigevil & sa-blacklist) hits on over 70% of my identified spam, in fact the only rule that hits more is bayes_99! I wouldn't go much lower with your required hits, otherwise you do run the risk of increased FPs. Cheers, matt
