Bayes still effective?

[John Rudd]

On Jul 28, 2004, at 2:46 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:

> Hi!
>
>> MessageI'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:
>
> SpamAssassin tag hits: (top 100)
> #1      202469  BAYES_99

202469 messages incorrectly marked as spam?  out of 10 billion messages
per day?

(just saying, posting a list of hit rates doesn't say anything about
the effectiveness of a particular tag ... it's almost meaningless,
really)

-------------------------- 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