Re: [OT] Tom's/Marc's spam filters?

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
>>Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>>Huh?  I just use Spamassassin myself, with Razor/Pyzor/DCC and Bayes all
>>>enabled ...
>>
>>I use exactly the same setup. But recently I've noticed that the
>>spammers are getting smarter -- I think 20% of it is slipping by the
>>filters. I'm going to need something better.
>
> do you force learn those spam that get through the cracks?  I get about 20
> or 30 messages that slip through the cracks, which I process through with
> sa-learn nightly ...

Sorry to drag this OT thread on even longer, but it seems to be a topic
many are interested in ;-)

I wanted to report back that after just 2 days of forced (supervised)
learning, the bayesian filter is now nailing about 99% of all spam.
*Many, many, thanks* for the suggestion.

But I wonder why the autolearn feature is so conservative? At this point
I'm getting lots of stuff like this:

X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.8 required=2.5 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_FONT_BIG,
    HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63
X-Spam-Report:
    *  0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
    *  0.3 HTML_FONT_BIG BODY: HTML has a big font
    *  5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
    *      [score: 1.0000]

Notice that, even though I get a hit on BAYES_99, I still get
autolearn=no. Ah well, I guess I should be asking that question of the
SpamAssassin guys. Also notice that this sucker would have gotten
through with a score of only 0.4 had it not been for the bayesian filter.

Again, thanks.

Joe