-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kenneth Porter wrote: > --On Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:41 PM -0400 DAve > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Currently 3.0.4 on the toasters, 3.0.2 on the MailScanner boxes. These >> may or may not get updates this month. I've never been fond of "update" >> as a solution to a problem unless I know the change in version will >> directly improve my use of the product. Right now SA is working >> wonderfully, I have no complaints. > > For most software, I'd strongly agree with you. But anti-spam software > is like anti-virus software. The battle evolves rapidly, and you need to > evolve with it if you're going to be effective in fighting it. > > With SA 3.1.2 just released, 3.0.4 is archaic. It's like fighting the > Gulf War with WWII weapons. (And anyone using SA 2.xx is using stuff > from the 19th century.)
We are running SA 3.1.0. Reading this thread today, I just found the SARE_STOCKS ruleset. I updated the rules_du_jour script and pulled down the ruleset. Have received some messages already that are being caught. Some others are making it through with scores of 6.7 - 6.9. Our threshold is 7.0. I have two issues/concerns with that: 1) When I run "sa-learn --spam <file>", I'm getting the following warning: $ sa-learn --spam 1149292740.12607.iceman12.giac.net Possible unintended interpolation of @1 in string at (eval 4924) line 1. Learned tokens from 1 message(s) (1 message(s) examined) 2) After running sa-learn, running the messages through spamc again doesn't show any improvement in the score. Is this normal? Thanks, Dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3rc2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEgN7K417vU8/9QfkRAsRMAKCTE685Fzwershpzagz5y9E/4tNmQCfVc0I u+rx2PcLsJPKPcDP5DlUqgw= =GQ7t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
