> I always feel i have to point out the flip side to this just to offer
> another opinion.
And I love ya for it ;) (In the kind of brotherly love one man can feel for another....)
> While i certainly dont have a NEED for bayes at our
> facility, i do run it, complete with autolearn. We have very
> low volume
> (5k msgs/day) but it works so well i rarely ever have to
> think about it.
> For us, 96% of the time bayes alone is enough to say whether a
> message is ham/spam. Add all the other tests on top of this (uribl,
> razor, a few sare, and theres easily a 20 point difference
> between ham
> and spam.
>
> -Jim
LOL, yeah. The average spam score from last year has gone up quite a lot! SARE noticibly has less things took look at as far as new tactics to cover with rules. Making a spam go from a score of 20 to 21, just doesn't seem a big deal :)
--Chris
