Re: [Evolution] Built-in spam filtering? (Spam grading is better)

[Arthur Britto <ahbritto iat com>]

On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 09:12, Jim Frost wrote:
> I note that I looked into spamassassin, which seems to be the preferred
> technique using an external filter, and I really dislike its rule-based
> system.  Way too many false positives, and a lot of work to set up and
> maintain too.  Spam filtering would be a great integrated feature and
> doesn't look like it'd be a lot of work to implement.

SpamAssassin + fetchmail + procmail + Evolution is great.

One of the big mistakes people make when using spam filtering is to
consider it a binary filter: spam or not spam.

I have my spam sorted in two categories: marginal and high.  I only
weekly check my marginal folder, if at all.  The high folder do not
check at all.

The rare false positives you talk about end up in the marginal folder.

-Arthur