At 10:50 AM 1/10/2006, Chris Santerre wrote:
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.
Interesting.. For me, BAYES_99 is right between SURBL and URIBL in terms of hits. (And has 98.91% of URIBL's total hits) I find it completely indispensable.
I rarely train manually, except at initial setup where I feed it a good base learning. (the autolearner can sometimes go awry if you don't train some mail manually before letting it go.)
On a day to day basis I mostly feed automatically with a cronjob that collects mail via spamtraps and hamtraps. I have that coupled with autolearning that's set a bit differently than the defaults. (IMNSHO, having a ham learning threshold that's positive is suicide, but I also have a large number of small negative-score rules so I can keep my threshold at -0.01 and actually autolearn some ham).
This setup is near zero maintenance, and highly effective. I can't see why it wouldn't be "worth it". It's almost as good as turning on URIBLs and not much more work. It's certainly much less work than rule writing. The last time I bothered to tinker with my bayes was before Christmas.
