MailScanner vs. SpamKiller

[Gerry Doris]

> Max Kipness wrote:
>> I’m not doing Bayes at the moment as it seems to be a real hassle doing
>> the training.
>
> I don't know for other sites but I don't bother with training. I use the
>   default autolearn feature (<0.1 ham, >12 spam) and it works great. If
> you have Exchange on the inside it's not easy to get a correct mail to
> learn from.
>
>> So my question is what can I do to improve the whole system? What
>> tweaks? Will DCC help out a lot? Are there any better RBLs? Tweaks to
>> SpamAssassin?
>
> Definitely turn on Bayes, it will help a lot even without additional
> training. Also use DCC, it's a really good design. It's easy to install,
> fast and stable.
>
> Here are my top SA traps:
>
> SpamAssassin    369,153
> ...HTML_MESSAGE 290,859
> ...BAYES_99     285,210
> ...RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET       255,030
> ...DCC_CHECK    232,846
>
> Out of a total of 369,153 messages identified as spam Bayes was 99% sure
> that 285,210 were spam, that's 5.4 points right there. The best RBL for
> me, as you can see, is spamcop and right after that follows the DCC
> checks. HTML_MESSAGE is a low scoring test that doesn't affect the total
> much.
>
> --
> /Peter Bonivart

I have also found Spamcop to be pretty accurate for the mail I receive. 
As such, I've bumped the spam score for it up a little from the default.

Gerry