On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:18:53AM -0700 or thereabouts, Steve Lamb wrote: > S.D.A. wrote: > > I agree. I switched from SA several months ago, and am quite happy with the > > speed, accuracy of Spamprobe over Spam Assassin. > > I think this thread has shown that many people have a gross misconception > on how SpamAssassin works and how it is fundimentally different than the > alternatives listed. In every case the alternatives listed have been a pure > Bayesian system. SpamAssassin is *NOT* a Bayesian system. It is a framework > in which a Bayesian system is also included. I think I was pretty fair. The fact that the SA framework is slower (I know due to the complexity), is a show stopper for me. If I can achieve better accuracy, with less work, increased speed, with less system resources -- Then I've found a winner. At least for MY needs. I respect and understand that your needs may be different. -- Steve +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Monday Jun 21 2004 11:36:01 AM EDT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you want to know how old a man is, ask his brother-in-law.
Attachment:
pgpNvgNwqO1sK.pgp
Description: PGP signature