You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Walter Hurry <wa...@lavabit.com> on 2011/08/24 22:04:28 UTC
ShortCircuit?
I have been using SA on my home box for a couple of months now; really
more as a learning exercise than anything else. Having noticed that my
Bayes is almost always right, I tried uncommenting
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit
and
shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam
in my local.cf. It seems to be working well, but is there a downside?
Re: ShortCircuit?
Posted by Walter Hurry <wa...@lavabit.com>.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:52:00 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Walter Hurry wrote:
>
>> I have been using SA on my home box for a couple of months now; really
>> more as a learning exercise than anything else. Having noticed that my
>> Bayes is almost always right, I tried uncommenting
>>
>> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit and
>> shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam
>>
>> in my local.cf. It seems to be working well, but is there a downside?
>
>
> I wouldn't use short-circuiting on a home computer, unless it really
> can't cope with the throughput and even then I'd start by
> short-circuiting ham. If you want to place more reliance on BAYES then
> change it's scores.
>
> If you short-circuit on BAYES_99 you lose the benefit of negative
> scoring rules. You also lose one of SA's best features: the ability to
> distinguish between certain spam and probable spam, and that makes it
> much harder to spot any FPs.
Sorry for the slight delay replying; I noted your comments and have been
monitoring for a couple of days.
No, I'm not short of system resources. I think I'll take your advice and
cease short-circuiting, and increase the Bayes scores a little bit.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Re: ShortCircuit?
Posted by RW <rw...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:04:28 +0000 (UTC)
Walter Hurry wrote:
> I have been using SA on my home box for a couple of months now;
> really more as a learning exercise than anything else. Having noticed
> that my Bayes is almost always right, I tried uncommenting
>
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit
> and
> shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam
>
> in my local.cf. It seems to be working well, but is there a downside?
I wouldn't use short-circuiting on a home computer, unless it
really can't cope with the throughput and even then I'd start by
short-circuiting ham. If you want to place more reliance on BAYES then
change it's scores.
If you short-circuit on BAYES_99 you lose the benefit of negative
scoring rules. You also lose one of SA's best features: the ability to
distinguish between certain spam and probable spam, and that makes it
much harder to spot any FPs.
Re: ShortCircuit?
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, Walter Hurry wrote:
> I have been using SA on my home box for a couple of months now; really
> more as a learning exercise than anything else. Having noticed that my
> Bayes is almost always right, I tried uncommenting
>
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit
> and
> shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam
>
> in my local.cf. It seems to be working well, but is there a downside?
Ya gotta watch your training closely.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is when people look at Yahoo, slashdot, or groklaw and
jump from obvious and correct observations like "Oh my God, this
place is teeming with utter morons" to incorrect conclusions like
"there's nothing of value here". -- Al Petrofsky, in Y! SCOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today: the 1932nd anniversary of the destruction of Pompeii