> -----Original Message-----
> From: jo3 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: rules better than bayes?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is an observation, please take it in the spirit in which it is
> intended, it is not meant to be flame bait.
>
> After using spamassassin for six solid months, it seems to me
> that the
> bayes process (sa-learn [--spam | --ham]) has only very
> limited success
> in learning about new spam. Regardless of how many spams and
> hams are
> submitted, the effectiveness never goes above the default
> level which,
> in our case here, is somewhere around 2 out of 3 spams correctly
> identified. By the same token, after adding the "third party" rule,
> airmax.cf, the effectiveness went up to 99 out of 100 spams correctly
> identified.
I have long said that IMHO, I do not think bayes is worth it. Left unattended, it isn't as good. A simple rule can take out a lot of spam. Some may say rule writing is more complicated then training bayes. Maybe. Not so much the rule writing, but the figuring out what to look for and testing for FPs.
I do not run Bayes for our company. Obviously I'm partial to URIBL.com and SARE rules ;) I get about 98% of spam caught, and little FPs.
This is going to sound like tooting our own horn, but so be it. Before SARE, Bayes was cool. After SARE, I see no need.
Chris Santerre
SysAdmin and SARE/URIBL ninja
http://www.uribl.com
http://www.rulesemporium.com
