Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
- 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.
No, I have them enabled - I just found them so effective that I
increased their scores.
- DCC is able to find at least some spam
Razor is quite good, too. Also Pyzor, though it requires much more
resources.
See, my friend who works at a hosting company didn't find Razor to be
much improvement. Perhaps he misconfigured it or smth?
I also recommend the iXhash plugin, which is another digest
test that kicks some serious butt.
Now you're talking. :-)
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?
Yes.
Did you manually (initially) train it
with your collected ham and recent (not older than 3 months) spam?
No, I just waited until default 200 hams and 200 spams kicked it in. As
I mentioned elsewhere, I get a weird effect of correct positives, but
relatively many false negatives from Bayes rules.
Regards,
Marcin Krol
