>>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.
I guess I am more conservative, we're talking about a very small pecentage of messages, so it is not a burden on TMDA, since you have observed they are generally spam anyway > 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. I am not questioning the motivation just that one minor detail tom _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
