On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 03:59:09AM EDT, Chris Green wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 03:51:41AM -0400, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > > There have been some false positives so far, and I'm glad > > > I did not discard them. But others do. > > > > I've had zero false positives, but that's because my SPAM detector is > > template-based, and with my conservative templates, I don't expect to > > ever have a false positive. The only downside is that my filter doesn't > > block much more than about half the SPAM. I'm hoping to fix that someday > > (when the remaining SPAM bothers me enough) by autogenerating identity > > templates from a spamcatcher addy. > > > I use some *very* simple procmail recipes, hardly 'spam detection' but > it detects way more than 50%, the main item is simply regarding > anything bcc'ed to me as junk. I really don't understand the need for > 'clever' spam detection, a collection of very simple and obvious > procmail recipes works so well that I see no need for trying to detect > the last few percent. 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 theoretically prevent infinitesimally close to 100% of all SPAM from getting through without ever having a false positive. - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgppA2Wudux76.pgp
Description: PGP signature