plug at ryansimpkins.com
Fri Aug 25 21:25:26 MDT 2006
On Fri, August 25, 2006 20:40, Michael Torrie wrote:
> Now the not so good. On my account, I get somewhere around 100 legit e-
> mails a day and only 5-20 spam messages (I used to get up to 50 spam a
> day until I started using grey-listing to kill 80% of the spam right at
> the connection). After three days of training the spam catching is
> still only 60%. It will eventually improve I hope. The wide variety of
> ham I receive makes the learning process take a lot longer (the "good"
> characteristics far outnumber the "bad").
This reflects my experience as well. I received a low volume of spam, so it took a
LONG time to train the filter (weeks). After 1000 messages and still only ~60%
accuracy I got frustrated and set the filter sensitivity to 'most sensitive.' This
was the single best thing I did. I have yet to match a single false positive at the
maximum sensitivity. Maybe it's just not sensitive enough. Now after about 4000
messages (still at max sensitivity) I get about a 96% filter rate.
The nicest thing about dspam in my opinion is the ultra easy web interface to view
quarantined messages, statistics, graphs, and message history. (Michael, did you set
your user to be the admin user so you can view global stats?) There are probably
better solutions out there now that both have an informative web interface, and
catch more spam. Perhaps someone can post alternatives.
My only beef remains that at max sensitivity I have zero false positives. I'd love
to kick it up a few more notches to see if the accuracy goes up.
More information about the PLUG