[Spambayes] Spam at hackers conference

[Mark Hammond]

> I've *always* suspected that spambayes in combination with other
> technology would present a very powerful anti-spam arsenal.  But
> spambayes by itself is so
> good, that it may not really require supplemental technology.

I'm finding that too.  My email had 2 different problems - Spam, and
attempted worm payload (Klez et al).

As soon as I had an Outlook plugin working, I hacked up a trivial worm
detector - way before I had the spambayes stuff working.  I was very very
happy with the results - worm problem almost gone!

Then bayes came along.  I made real attempts to keep these worms out of my
spam corpa, as I thought they would mess up Bayes (eg, they often had
"pythonwin" in the subject).

But regardless of how careful I am, Bayes *still* defines them as Spam.  My
worm filter and Bayes are battling over who gets to move the mail message.
No matter how careful I am about keeping these worms from my Spam folder,
Bayes just keeps on knowing they are junk.

This mirrors what Tim has been saying - it seems likely that a single
classifier, over *all* of your mail (including mailing list etc) will be
pretty much all you need.

And-client-software-that-doesn't-keep-crapping-out <wink>

Mark.