Re: SA going downhill
According to S.D.A.,
> 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.
I personally also switched from SA to something else.
I love the SA framework idea, but its bayesian implementation was such that
spammers could easily get past it by spewing random words.
So I switched to CRM114's mailfilter.
But given SA's framework-of-methods methodology perhaps a
better approach would have been to integrate the better
learning filter into SA.
Reply to: