On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 12:52 +0100, Marcin Krol wrote:
> Through experimentation I have found that the following techniques are
> highly effective:
> - SURBL and URIBL are extremely effective at identifying spam
They are enabled by default -- unless you are running local tests only.
Did you (or your distro default) disable network tests? If you
specifically had to enable these, you are likely missing more of them.
Yes, network tests are highly effective with SA.
> - DCC is able to find at least some spam
Razor is quite good, too. Also Pyzor, though it requires much more
resources. I also recommend the iXhash plugin, which is another digest
test that kicks some serious butt.
Results and effectiveness vary, everyone's spam is different.
> Is anybody here willing to share other / better techniques and tips?
Watch the list. Every now and then additional rules, tips and even DNS
BLs are posted and discussed here.
Btw, do you have Bayes enabled? Did you manually (initially) train it
with your collected ham and recent (not older than 3 months) spam?
guenther
--
char *t="[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
