On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:17:21 +0800
W B Hacker <wbh@???> wrote:
> ...
>
> Went and had a look at bsfilter. Have some questions:
>
> - '...simpler...' Possibly. But Bayesian ONLY?
>
> Is it as *effective* as SA (with or without SA's Spam_Bayes?)
>
Although it's been a while since I used SA, I would say yes -- as long as
all you require is a solid classification engine with no bells and whistles.
>
> - '...not a resource hog' Perhaps not - if it is doing far fewer
> comparisons.
>
My first experience with SA was by way of the Mailscanner wrapper, the
combination of which made me end up with a whole pig pen as far as resources
were concerned. It became a little better, but still unacceptable after
running SA directly.
> But does it remain so as the Bayes DB grows? Does it become more/less
> effective with such growth? i.e - begin to learn bad habits.
>
So far, no problems. The beauty of bsfilter is that it can be set up to
not train with every scan, instead you train it on classification errors
(and they are few and far in between). Also, it prunes itself when the
databases get bigger than the set treshold.
> ISTR that Ruby is generally slower in execution than comparable perl,
> syntax elegance, security issues or lack therof entirely aside.
>
Don't know the answer. All I can say is that I am extremely satisfied
with the way it works for me.
> my curretn impression is that bsfilter doesn't seem to be nearly as
> tailorable, nor as universal a scanning solution as SpamAssassin.
>
> Any evidence otherwise? Comparisons?
>
Please see my first reply above. I would suggest that you withhold judgment
(and pontification) until you have tested it for yourself. :)
> Bill
>
--
My
