Re: consistant failures on a new kind of spam

Phil Hord wrote:
 > I've been using CRM-114 for about 5 months to catch all the spams that
 > Spamprobe is missing.  I continually feedback all the missed spams (from
 > both sides) into both Spamprobe and CRM-114 for training.  Spamprobe
 > still manages to miss 30-50 spams a day which CRM-114 is able to catch.
 >
 > The downside:
 > o CRM-114 has more false-positives than Spamprobe.  But it does seem to
 > be learning.
 > o CRM-114 is a pain to set up and get running.
 > o CRM-114 misses a lot of spam everyday (classifies it as "unsure").
 > But the Unsure mails are mostly spam and easy to wade through.

SP is biased in favor of avoiding false positives so this doesn't surprise me.  Glad to hear that 
combining filters works well.  Statistically it is impossible to catch everything and there will be 
occasional spams that include enough of the right words to get past.  I think SP's biggest weakness 
at the moment is that it does not extract enough useful tokens from images to block the image only 
spams.

All the best,
++Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642

_______________________________________________
Spamprobe-users mailing list
Spamprobe-users-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamprobe-users