Amedee (and everyone else), I use a two-pronged approach. My ISP does spam filtering based (I think) on the published blacklists. This gets rid of about 90% of the spam. A lot of the stuff that gets through is marketing material which isn't really spam, but I don't want it - a well-trained Spambayes gets rid of most of this. Not always the odd Nigerian with millions of dollars, but they can be amusing.
------------------------- Thursday, June 30, 2011, 12:03:55 PM, you wrote: > On Wed, June 29, 2011 17:42, Thomas Hruska wrote: >> On 6/29/2011 4:08 AM, Erik Ohrnberger wrote: >>> I gave up on spambayes. It was letting too much spam through. At one >>> time, >>> it was batting 100, but I guess the spammers got smarter or something. >>> >>> I'm using a gmail account now forwarded to a private (secret) inbox that >>> my >>> outlook pulls down. >> >> Same here (minus the Outlook part). Spammers won because Spambayes >> didn't keep up, IMO. Letting us define a list of word filters and rules >> to apply prior to letting Spambayes do its Bayesian thing would be a >> vast improvement to the product despite what the devs claim. I know my >> e-mail better than any computer does or likely ever will. > You can do that if you use Spambayes as a procmail filter. >> Spambayes also isn't very good about enforcing balanced ham/spam. It >> works best with equal parts and small numbers of ham and spam but never >> actually enforces either policy. 99% of what comes into many people's >> in-boxes is spam. The solution spammers came up with to get through >> Spambayes was simply to generate more spam and hope people would >> overtrain Bayesian filters, which is exactly what constantly happens >> with Spambayes. Bayesian-like filters are hard to work with and really >> need a trainer analyzer. A good trainer analyzer will keep the filter >> free of things that would not produce effective results. In this case, >> the elimination of spam and limited false positives. > amedee@intrepid:~$ ./bin/spamstats > Spam: 2974 > Ham: 2040 > So I have a 3:2 ratio. It could be better, but I'm not complaining. >> I can open my mouth here because I've actually done some development on >> this open source product. Or at least attempted to. My contributions a >> few years ago were effectively rejected, which pretty much killed any >> potential future efforts on my behalf. I happen to have some pretty >> solid C++ COM Outlook add-in development street cred, so the Spambayes >> devs ruined an opportunity to pick up a Windows developer with the >> requisite knowledge. > Where is your branch? I assume that you used some kind of public > repository for your code? You can always fork... > _______________________________________________ > SpamBayes@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes > Info/Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes > Check the FAQ before asking: > http://spambayes.sf.net/faq.html > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3734 - Release Date: 06/29/11 > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3734 - Release Date: 06/29/11 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3734 - Release Date: 06/29/11 _______________________________________________ SpamBayes@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes Info/Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes Check the FAQ before asking: http://spambayes.sf.net/faq.html
