[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of v
From: |
Steven D'Aprano |
Subject: |
Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?) |
Date: |
Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:58:28 +1000 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 04:01:16 am Joe Zeff wrote:
> I don't know why, but Thunderbird thought this huge message was spam.
The missus uses Thunderbird, and as near as we can tell, its spam
filtering is crap. She found false negative rates approaching 50% (half
the actual spam was flagged as good) and false positive rates
approaching 10% (one out of ten good emails was flagged as spam).
I've been running SpamAssassin for about two months now, and it catches
about 99% of spam with only four (not four percent, just four) false
positives. And one of those was a fanzine that included a fake Nigerian
spam post written for laughs. It gave Duncan's huge post a spam score
of -6.5, which is decisively ham.
The only downsides to SpamAssassin are that you need to be running your
own mail server, it is relatively weak at "picture spams", and by
default is has the unfortunately habit of learning from it's own
mistakes. Not in the good way of "well don't do that again", but in the
bad way of "I think that's spam, so I'll flag anything that looks like
that as spam" -- even when it isn't.
Given that last factor, SpamAssassin requires some administration, so
it's not just fire-and-forget, but I'd recommend it.
--
Steven D'Aprano
- Re: Big XML files... (was Re: [Pan-users] Re: Better processing of very large groups?), (continued)
- [Pan-users] If SQLite has NFS locking problems... (was Re: Big XML files... (was ...)), Ron Johnson, 2009/07/04
- [Pan-users] Re: If SQLite has NFS locking problems... (was Re: Big XML files... (was ...)), Duncan, 2009/07/04
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: If SQLite has NFS locking problems... (was Re: Big XML files... (was ...)), Ron Johnson, 2009/07/04
- [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Duncan, 2009/07/04
- [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Duncan, 2009/07/04
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Ron Johnson, 2009/07/04
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Joe Zeff, 2009/07/04
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?),
Steven D'Aprano <=
- [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Matej Cepl, 2009/07/05
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Steven D'Aprano, 2009/07/05
- [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Matej Cepl, 2009/07/07
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Ron Johnson, 2009/07/05
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), walt, 2009/07/05
- [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Matej Cepl, 2009/07/04
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Ron Johnson, 2009/07/04
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), CSV4ME2, 2009/07/04
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Ron Johnson, 2009/07/04
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Big XML files... (was Re: Re: Better processing of very large groups?), Steven D'Aprano, 2009/07/04