On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:41:29 -0700, Tom <firstname.lastname@example.org> penned:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:55:03PM +0000, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 16:54:49 -0400, Naitik Shah <email@example.com> penned:
>> > I've got procmail piping mail through spamassassin (about that, is it
>> > better to use spamc? ). From what I understand spamassassin learns all
>> > the time. Is this automatic and default? Or do I need to give it a
>> > folder filled with spam to analyze?
>> > Naitik.
>> My understanding is that you need to run sa-learn to have it learn.
>> Something like:
>> sa-learn --spam --mbox mail/my_mailbox
>> you can also use the --nonspam option to train it to recognize
>> *legitemate* mail.
> I'd like to ask a question of spamassassin users:
> Do you have to "visually scan" spamassassin logs or output folders, to
> "make sure" it's doing the right thing?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Different people will have
different levels of comfort. I have all suspected spam go to a mailbox
that I can then check at my leisure. SA has "mis-diagnosed" a few
legitemate emails as spam, although I can't say I blame it -- some
mailing lists refuse to lay off the html, caps, bright colors, etc.
I have an old, old freemail address that gets ~40 messages a day, all
spam. I take a brief peek and then tell sa-learn to go at 'em.
So far, SA has had one or two false hits for me -- again, obnoxious
mailing lists that refuse to offer a plain-text alternative. False hits
bother me far more than accidentally letting a spam through here or
> [I'm interested in this from a philosophical perspective. Read "The
> Illusion of Technique" by William Barrett and the scheduling algorithm
> which broke down because people go to the bathroom at random intervals
Please respond to the group OR to my email, but not both. (Group preferred.)