[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       spamassassin-users
Subject:    Re: bayes scroing too low
From:       Reindl Harald <h.reindl () thelounge ! net>
Date:       2014-08-31 21:18:56
Message-ID: 54039140.1020401 () thelounge ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


Am 31.08.2014 um 23:06 schrieb Ian Zimmerman:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:20:41 +0200,
> Axb <axb.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Axb> Bayes scores are *not* set to be a sole indicator of spam/ham.
> Axb> They're supposed to be yet another indicator.
> 
> FWIW, I use both Razor and Pyzor, and there are times when they seem to
> be just asleep.  Or maybe a particular kind of spam defeats their hash
> protection methods.  Then for some hours I get repeated cases like
> Harald's - positive BAYES_999 but nothing much else.  It is quite
> frustrating.

nope - there is nothing frustrating

set the bayes scores higher if you trust them, i am starring
for some hours on my maillogs and without Razor and Pyzor
the results are *impressing*

in comination with postscreen and PTR-checks and SA as last
defense there comes 1 out of 1000 delivery attempts to a
user, as far as i see no false positives and a handful
of spam makes it through - trying to eliminate that would
introduce false positives which is odd

after 8 years using a commercial spamfirewall which also
useses SA within a lot of other *real crap* and after
switch a domain with some thousand valid RCPT i hold my
breath and ask myself why i did not do that switch long ago



["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]