Bayes still effective?

[Bernadette Welsh]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <raymond at PROLOCATION.NET>
To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: Bayes still effective?


> > I'm not using SpamAssassin's Bayes yet, but considering implementing
> > it.   As you all know, the problem is that most spam deliberately tries
to
> > mess up the Bayes engine by including lists of words buried in the
message.
> >
> > This strikes me as a pretty effective way of circumventing bayes.  Is it
> > worth bothering with?
>
> Its VERY effective, still... todays stats:

Thanks for the stats, Raymond.  They mirror mine in terms of RCVD_IN_SBL+XBL
and RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET being the most effective rbl providers.

Of course, the stats don't show how many spam messages BAYES_99 caught that
the other methods wouldn't have done.  They don't show either whether
BAYES_99 was correct.

Tell me, do you teach the Bayes engine spam with the lists of words within
them?

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html