Re: Query/suggestion

> spamprobe is working well for me.
> It screens out over 90% of incoming spam: 870/954 = 91%+
> in a recent eleven-day period.
> Handling the seven messages per day that leak through is not a problem; 
> handling the 80+ total spam messages per day was a huge problem for me
> before I started using spamprobe.
>
> So I am a happy user, 
> but am always wondering about results that other users get, 
> and about improved algorithms for spam detection.
>
> Query:
> Are other users still getting 98% or better efficiency from spamprobe?

Yes.  90% is below expectations; probably because you get so little
spam.  I think the folks with 99.X% hit rate probably get that many
messages per day.  I had a light day yesterday, only 400 spams in my
personal mailbox.  Give it a little longer before you draw any
conclusions.

> Would it be reasonable to add a feature to spamprobe
> (or other Bayesian spam detectors) to allow the user
> to specify a file of common words 

No, manual tweaking is seldom as reliable as letting the 
algorithms do their thing.  If they're common words, the Bayesian
system will work that out for itself, that's what it does.

IMHO the only tweaking that may help at this point is stuff
that is not word-related.

G


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click