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. -- Steve +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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.
Description: PGP signature