Kārlis Repsons wrote:
Hi,
in fact, all spam filters are normally designed with an intent to get rid of
spam, not ham, but anyway, I'm confused with my possible chances to miss some
mails for no really valid reason. I've seen that long list in [1], but that
doesn't say much of what should be avoided. For example, I remember somewhere
it was said, that SpamCop may be "too aggressive".
So, how should I understand better what to avoid in what cases? (I'd rather
leave out some dangerous tests and train Bayes filter)
[1] http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/rules/STATISTICS.txt
Different filtering systems have different philosophies relating to the
relative importance of blocking spam vs. passing ham. Some people are
fine with losing some good emails to get rid of spam. Other people are
fine will getting more spam to ensure that good email isn't blocked.
SpamAssassin is more designed to detect spam than to protect ham. I
personally focus on white rules and white lists to ensure good email
gets through. Probably because those customers scream louder and rightly so.
I do think that SA should focus more on ham detection and not just spam
detection. You have to reprogram your brain to get it into the mode of
detecting ham. Ham is often easy to detect. They aren't evading and
hiding like the spammers are.
