>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tony> A lot of people are quite in favour of the multiple filter
Tony> approach. Different filtering techniques have different
Tony> strengths, and so if you combine them in appropriate ways, you'll
Tony> hopefully get an end system that's better than any of the
Tony> individuals (much as Skip described his results).
...
Tony> SpamBayes is really designed as an individual (probably
Tony> client-side) filter. I know various people use it for multiple
Tony> users (server-side etc), but there are many issues with that.
Tony> There are other things (e.g. the database and concurrency) that
Tony> would be higher up in priority than whitelisting, though.
A recent thread on postfix-users may be of interest to some people here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/114423
There's a lot of information that MTA's like postfix have available to them
which makes no sense to add to tools like SpamBayes. If you can knock of
80% of the spam without resorting to expensive tools like SB, why not do it?
Tony> If people really want whitelisting, then their mailer can do it,
Tony> or they can buy (e.g.) InBoxer. All the developers have their own
Tony> reasons for working on SpamBayes, but I doubt getting good
Tony> magazine reviews comes into play for many.
I seem to recall the original InBoxer guy (Sean True?) saying they
implemented whitelisting not because it actually improved the tool but
because so many users had requested it.
Skip
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes
Check the FAQ before asking: http://spambayes.sf.net/faq.html
