-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:16:07PM -0500, Thomas A. Moulton wrote:
>Yes, but if everything that SA considers not to be spam bypasses >TMDA why do we have TMDA at all? > >Sounds like SA will let some spam through if it judges wrong. >So why not let TMDA handle those? There are two ways SA can be wrong: 1. false positive -- ham seen as spam 2. false negative -- spam seen as ham You're talking about 2. I avoid that by setting required_hits very low (-1.5), but you could just as easily remove the rule that allows those to deliver. I found that messages SA allowed to bypass TMDA typically were spam, so I made its requirements much more strict. TMDA takes care of 1. By giving spam a chance through (via whitelist or confirmation), you avoid the false positive problem. The other benefit we get from SA is that we can take things that are obviously spam (i.e., spams with very high scores) and NOT challenge them, saving time and bandwidth. If you don't trust SA's idea of ham at all, you can probably still find some score at which you feel confident SA really HAS identified a spam, and skip confirming those. That alone is an important benefit. - -- Kyle Hasselbacher | It pays to be obvious, especially if you have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a reputation for subtlety. -- Isaac Asimov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAO6MG10sofiqUxIQRAghnAKCVjdRw6MCg7AR+H0QsTiG0BPw5ZgCgqyqA gnpmHo7LMIG2PufsQLB5LsU= =RiYM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
