On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 09:19:05PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >Huh? I just use Spamassassin myself, with Razor/Pyzor/DCC and Bayes all
> >enabled ...
>
> I use exactly the same setup. But recently I've noticed that the
> spammers are getting smarter -- I think 20% of it is slipping by the
> filters. I'm going to need something better.
No offense, but that means you're not doing it right. I use SA with
Bayes (and everything else), and I'm getting better than 98% with no
false positives. Yesterday I had 823 spams (you read that correctly)
with 9 that made it through. When I woke up this morning, I had 334
spams with 2 that made it through.
I constantly train my Bayesian filter by using an email address I set
up where I forward all false-negatives. So the few that get through
won't be doing that again. It simply runs them through sa-learn. If I
get some time, I'll post the code to my web site.
Spammers cannot outsmart a Bayesian filter. It's game-over. You don't
need to upgrade, you need to figure out how to make your current setup
work.
Make sure you have the latest SA and make sure that Bayesian filtering
is turned on and working, and make sure to train the filter. Reply to
me offlist if you need a group of 5000 or so spams to help train it.
Michael
--
Michael Darrin Chaney
mdchaney@michaelchaney.com
http://www.michaelchaney.com/
