* It was Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:39AM -0700 when Roy S. Rapoport said: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:15:14AM -0400, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > Treating BCCed mail as junk doesn't guarantee no false positives, and > > doesn't catch most of the new breed SPAM. If you ask me, template > > scanners are the most powerful anti-SPAM tool available that can > > guarantee zero false positives. If you have spamcatcher addys, you can > > With the minor caveat that your system currently has about a 50% False > Negative score :) > > I'll throw in my hat for CRM114, BTW. You can see its sucess on my system > at > http://www.inorganic.org/~rsr/crm_success.txt > > which is updated hourly. Summary: Deployed for 82 days. History for these > 82 days: 99.45% accuracy, with 99.72% false positive avoidance and 99.74% > false negative avoidance. Now that I've been training it well, I believe > the last 30 days are more representative of what it's capable of -- 16,920 > messages, 2477 tagged as spam. 99.935% FP avoidance and 99.9% FN > avoidance. > > All with incredibly minimal hassle setting up and maintaining. Have you used dspam at all? I've been getting corrupt databases with 2.x and 3.x-beta versions of dspam using either mysql or berkdb. This is easy to fix when it happens (I'm assuming it's weird chars in spam because the corrupt table is dspam_token_data, anyways getting too OT) but I've thought of trying out CRM114 anyways. Is it as simple as dspam to get running? Seems like it might be worth a switch, although I get great results from dspam too. (After a week or two of training I get _very_ little spam in my inbox, and don't remember the last time I found a false positive) -- Sami Samhuri
Attachment:
pgpWX0rnf9sCm.pgp
Description: PGP signature