Re: spamassassin ?
On 09 Mar 2004, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> > > I don't know anything about spamprobe. I think one reason people like
> > > spamassassin is that it has a mix of heuristic and learning (Bayesian)
> > > rules. And you can add your own rules to the list, based on regular
> > > expressions.
> >
> > Spamprobe is a Bayesian filter too.
>
> Right-- just to say that SpamAssassin has both. Maybe Spamprobe does,
> too. Honestly, as someone who was looking around a few months ago for a
> spam filter, I found it pretty hard to tell the difference among them.
> There are at least a dozen of them, with similar names, and similar
> features. They all do Bayesian filtering. So I didn't care much; I
> just grabbed SpamAssassin, and it works fine for me, so I'm done with
> that problem.
>
> So if they're all the same, why did I get SpamAssassin?
>Name recognition, I guess.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes. that was my reason for introducing this subthread. In the past I
tried spamassassin, bogofilter, spamprobe, and mailfilter (which I
couldn't get to work). I found spamprobe to be the best of these, at
least for me.
Some correspondents on the spamprobe mailing list report using both
spamprobe and spamassassin, but I don't find a need for this.
Anthony
--
ac@acampbell.org.uk || http://www.acampbell.org.uk
using Linux GNU/Debian || for book reviews, electronic
Windows-free zone || books and skeptical articles
Reply to: