[ILUG] spam

[Paul Jakma]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Waider wrote:

> I use Razor plugged into SpamAssassin. So I can't tell you how
> effective it's been by itself; the combination has had maybe two
> false positives (both ILUG mails, strangely enough)

cool.

> > then rely on others to filter your mail - not sure if i like that.
> 
> *shurg* You're already checking your spambox for false positives.
> This is no different.

true.

but i intend to fine tune it enough so i get /no/ false positives. :)

the razor system is online, it changes underneath your feet.

> Having spent a few months playing with procmail filter lists and the
> like, I can't see why anyone would bother spending time redoing what
> the SpamAssassin guys have done. 

i didnt redo it. i started it at least a year ago, i didnt know about
spamassassin (how good was it over a year ago?), i just started adding
regex's to a filter. now, a year later, it's gotten to be quite good..  
:)

that said, i downloaded spamassassin last night and i'll be culling 
some more regex's from it. :)

> It's an extremely effective system, is easy to configure, and can
> even be made completely transparent to users (i.e.  the 'visible'
> part of the mail never gets tagged, just the headers)  which is
> ideal if you're running it sitewide. And a particularly neat feature
> of it is the adaptive whitelist, which modifies itself per sender
> address over a period of time, i.e. as it becomes more certain that
> that address is or is not a spammer.

hmm.. that sounds a good idea.

> Anyway. No association with the SpamAssassin people, just a happy
> user.  And if using Razor means even one less spam in my inbox, I'm
> using Razor.

indeed. i might download it and it to the script i run my spam 
through. dont think i'll use it myself though.

as for spamassassin: yes that sounds like an easier way to do what 
i've done over the last year. ah well. :)

> Cheers,
> Waider.

--paulj