On 02/10/05, Steve Lamb <grey@???> wrote:
> Marc Perkel wrote:
> > What I want to do is after a few that Exim learns somehow that this is
> > all ham and just bless it without having to rerun SA every time. Exim is
> > at least 1000 times faster than SA and bypassing SA reduces system load.
>
> I understand what you wanted, Marc. I was not replying to that at all. I
> was just pointing out that Peter was incorrect in his equation that
> SpamAssassin is Bayesian and Bayesian is SpamAssassin. Nothing more than
> that, nothing less.
Please show me where I outlined such an equation? Come on, I don't
mind being told I'm wrong when I am, but this is going a bit far.....
I did refer solely to the Bayesian capabilities of SA without
mentioning that it does other things as well, but believe me, I'm very
much aware of that.
My point (possibly poorly expressed) was all about watching out that
you don't burn just as many cycles working out how to bypass SA as you
would simply letting it do its job, and at the same time, throwing the
Bayesian baby out with the bathwater. We've been round this loop a few
times ourselves.
Peter
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter@???
Tel: +44 1296 768003
VoIP: sip:peter@???
