[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SA going downhill

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:50:46AM +0100 or thereabouts, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2004, Antony wrote:
> For many months now I've been using spamprobe, which I find better than
> spamassassin. Easy to set up and not more than one or two false
> negatives a day; no false positives at all. I don't know why spamprobe
> receives less publicity than the compettion but it's better than all the
> others I've tried. There's a good mailling list to which the author
> contributes frequently.

I agree. I switched from SA several months ago, and am quite happy with the
speed, accuracy of Spamprobe over Spam Assassin. I'm running the version from
Testing. Being that Spamprobe is a C++ application, compared to SA, which is
Perl, it's no wonder Spamprobe is quicker on it's feet. :)

I found that after the initial setup, with thousands of both Spam & Ham, it works
best, while in training mode afterwards. In any event, it comes with a pretty fine
manual to explain the setup procedure. I have had very few false positives,
which where fixed quickly by adjusting the scoring rules.

  Monday Jun 21 2004 10:01:02 AM EDT
I'm not under the alkafluence of inkahol
that some thinkle peep I am.
It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get.

Attachment: pgpga1qVs3kVz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: