The url to bogofilter is:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/bogofilter
What you say about spamassassin for long processing time is true for a
server, but on the client side, it is not significant.
Smitty
On Monday 16 September 2002 22:17, you wrote:
> There was a write-up on the front page of the weekly version of LWN this
> week (http://www.lwn.net) that compared the new bogofilter with
> spamassassin. In general, bogofilter (by ESR) is every bit as good as
> spamassassin, which is considered about the best spam filter out there.
> Spamassassin doesn't rely on the same algorithm that junkfilter and
> spambouncer do. Junkfilter/spambouncer rely on experience with known
> spammers, and must be constantly updated as spammers change their
> tactics. This is not so much true of spamassassin.
>
> However, spamassassin is written in perl. And in my experience,
> junkfilter, spambouncer and spamassassin are slow as snails when
> processing your emails for spam. I've had to wait as much as half an
> hour for it to process 400 pieces of mail.
>
> Bogofilter, on the other hand, is coded in C, and uses statistical
> analysis of the mail you feed it to determine the spamness of mail. This
> makes is adapt to the particular types of spam you're getting. And it's
> nearly as fast as having no filter at all. You must train bogofilter,
> but it doesn't take much. I've been using for a few days, and I'm
> suitably impressed by its accuracy and speed. If a piece of mail has
> been miscategorized by bogofilter, you can tell it that it made a
> mistake. Kind of like voice recognition software, I suppose, only much
> better.
>
> Anyway, for those of you who hadn't caught this, I thought you might be
> interested. Good article on LWN. Read that first.
>
> Paul
>
> P.S. There's a mis-doc in the man file and the README for this package
> that I've emailed ESR about. If you don't catch it, ask me about it and
> I'll point it out.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:40:37 EDT