Fighting bogus news spam

[Sven Hoexter]

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 01:41:24PM +0200, Tomaž Šolc wrote:

Hi,

> I don't like the idea of lowering the cut-off. With the amount of spam
> I'm getting it's impossible to go through the spam box manually and
> check for false positives. I do know I get some occasionally even with
> this setting because two or three times in the last year I found a mail
> I was expecting in the spam box.
> 
> By the way, I'm using bogofilter with procmail and constant training (-u
> option).
> 
> Maybe it's time I switch to three-state filtering? I didn't set this up
> in the first place because I didn't saw a particular benefit in this.
> You have to read through both inbox and unsure folders anyway, so I
> don't see why this is better than just having everything in inbox.

Well who knows what I 've missed in the spams I skiped but so far I'm not
aware of having missed something.

The adavantage of the three-state filtering I see is that I can read through
my inbox and mailinglist folders without getting distracted by spam I've to
sort out. Once a day or when I miss something I'll take a look at the content
in the unsure folder and sort them for training.
I'm not using the automatic training so far and I'm happy with the result.

Maybe the results would be even better with the automatic training? Hm should
try that one day.


> > AFAIR there were some waves with quotes from classical literature to 
> > poison statitical filters in the past but so far bogofilter was able 
> > to cope with it for me. At least I don't receive daily newsletters 
> > with such stuff.
> 
> I had pretty much the same experience with those.

Strange but it's kinda hard to compare your mail traffic and your database
with mine for such an individual system.

Sven
-- 
If God passed a mic to me to speak
I'd say stay in bed, world
Sleep in peace
   [The Cardigans - 03:45: No sleep]