On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 07:56 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote:
I wrote:
Actually, I find that SA's Bayesian engine is pretty good at
spotting
the random text they put in most image spam. With a few extra points
for
technical stuff, most of it goes directly to the spam folder, and
the
rest to the "unsure" folder with fairly high scores.
"Aaron Konstam" replied:
I guess I have to point this out with a little bit of trepidation.
But
if you have an unsure folder you are probably using SpamBayes not Spamassassin.
No, it's *definitely* SpamAssassin. I used to use SpamBayes, and I brought the concept with me to SpamAssassin. I sort into "unsure", "spam", and my normal mailboxes through procmail based on the SpamAsssassin score.
And I *do* think an "unsure" folder is a Good Thing. The downside, of course, is a folder I must manually check. The aim is to keep it empty. But the *first* thing you should know when you want to filter spam is that no system can be perfect. There will be spam that gets around all the rules (yes, even DNS lists, if you happen to be first on a spam run) and there will be non-spam that looks spammy. An "unsure" box is a Pretty Good Way of getting that uncertainty into one place where you can keep an eye on it.
Well I guess I can accuse you of being hypnotized by the SpamBayes people who also think the unsure folder is a good thing. Well in my opinion it is not. What is good about having an extra folder to check for spam and ham? Nothing I would say. But we Linux people believe in each persons individual freedom to make mistakes -:) -- ======================================================================= A fool and your money are soon partners. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net