| |||||||||||||
The Grumpy Editor's guide to bayesian spam filtersThe Grumpy Editor's guide to bayesian spam filtersPosted Feb 23, 2006 9:42 UTC (Thu) by walterh (guest, #19113)Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to bayesian spam filters
I think that running SpamAssassin with the network tests enabled is unfair and invalidates the statistic. After all, your mail was collected over some time and only then fed to SpamAssassin. So in the meantime, all the network databases that SpamAssassin queries already had the spam from your set marked by other users. This is very different to the situation where you pipe your incoming spam through SpamAssassin in real-time, because then most spam isn't marked yet.
(Log in to post comments)
The Grumpy Editor's guide to bayesian spam filters Posted Feb 23, 2006 10:40 UTC (Thu) by robdinn (guest, #30753) [Link] That's a good point.
But may that is an argument for spamassassin + greylisting :)
The Grumpy Editor's guide to bayesian spam filters Posted Feb 23, 2006 13:36 UTC (Thu) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] It's also unfair in terms of performance. SA with only local tests is *much* faster (although, arguably, still not 'fast' in the bogofilter sense of the word).
|
|||||||||||||