Bogofiler with a specified wordlist.db

[.rp]

> .rp wrote:
> > the SA is used to weed out email based on their overall structure
> > (the internal bayseian is not used at all) . If the email gets
> > passed that, it then gets bogofiltered in a procmail recipie
> > (instead of different wordlist, i use different parameters for
> > certain users) with the -u option on. I have not done a retraining
> > in years , just a monthly maintain run every month to get rid of
> > tokens more than 95 days old.
> 
> Do you find that SA is more efficient (uses less resources) than
> Bogofilter?  Not on my system it isn't.  Assuming it isn't on yours
> either, and since you say that you use Bogofilter as the filter of
> last resort (either it's spam here or it's ham), then what do you gain
> from using SA at all?  If Bogofilter is more authoritative, you're not
> benefitting in the least by putting a less efficient, less
> authoritative filter in front of it.
I disagree. I don't want bogofilter wasting its time and perhaps getting poisoned again 
by emails that are obviously spam due to its structure. Since having SA as the second 
gate (first gate is within sendmail itself using several procedures) we have not gotten 
our bogofilter table poisoned.

> 
> Also, how can you possibly maintain a valid database if you're using
> the -u option and not training errors?  It seems to me that you're
> probably filtering many more FPs than you realize.
> 
ok, I misunderstood what was meant. Yes, on the rare occasion that a mistake is 
made in bogofiltering the message is sent back with the proper remediation options.

> > And things are just fine, users have only complained once this year
> > about email getting through and have had only 3 false positived so
> > far this year.
> 
> That you know about.  Do you personally review all 25 users' spam
> folders for false positives?
> 
> Tom
The users get a report on what has been sent to a holding location due to being 
tagged as spam by bogofilter or the SpamAssassin.