Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > S.D.A. wrote: >> I agree. I switched from SA several months ago, and am quite happy with the >> speed, accuracy of Spamprobe over Spam Assassin. > > I think this thread has shown that many people have a gross misconception > on how SpamAssassin works and how it is fundimentally different than the > alternatives listed. In every case the alternatives listed have been a pure > Bayesian system. SpamAssassin is *NOT* a Bayesian system. It is a framework > in which a Bayesian system is also included. > > Do you trust the Bayesian scoring more than the rest of the framework? > Want to increase its accuracy? The *adjust the scoring*! In the default > setup SpamAssassin is quite liberal in what it lets through because no one > test can set a piece of mail to spam. This means it is highly resilient to > false positives.
The scoring in more recent versions of spamassassin is generated using a genetic algorithm that finds the optimal success rate while keeping false positives to a minimum. It's not something I'd mess with lightly, unless you really know what you're doing. -- You win again, gravity! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
