Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam

DSPAM v3.2 Beta-1 Released 20

Posted by michael from the spam-all-you-want dept.
Nuclear Elephant writes "After three months of development, the first public beta of DSPAM v3.2 has been released for testing. New features include SQLite support, A Win32 build supplement, extensions API, and some advanced new processing functionality such as Bill Yerazunis' (CRM114) Sparse Binary Polynomial Hashing and v1.2 of the author's Bayesian Noise Reduction Logic. Accuracy in 3.x has reportedly peaked as high as 99.991% (2 errors in 22,786 messages). Grab the new copy and participate in the request for feedback."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DSPAM v3.2 Beta-1 Released More

DSPAM v3.2 Beta-1 Released

Comments Filter:
  • How can they release such an unfinished product ? I missed 2 whole emails !!!!
  • why use infomercial type of speak?

    "DSPAM users frequently see between 99.95% (1 error in 2000) all the way up to 99.991% (2 errors in 22,786)."

    that could mean just about anything, "frequently see" could mean that they will see succes rates like that if they get the same mail 20 000 times...

    or are they trying to 'sell' the the little phb in all of us?

  • DSPAM. . . neat at fist, not for long. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Christopher Cashell ( 2517 ) on Thursday September 23, 2004 @09:47AM (#10329003) Homepage Journal
    I used DSPAM for a while. I started using it with the Berkeley DB backend, and that worked reasonably well. . . it was fairly fast, but database corruption was almost impossible to avoid. I don't think I ever managed more than 3-4 weeks without my DB getting killed.

    So, then I started using an SQL database. That worked great for a while, except it was slow. Now, admittedly, I'm running my mail server on an old machine (Dual Pentium Pro 200's, with 450MB RAM), but DSPAM was horrible. With more than half a dozen e-mails to process at a time, it would just choke. And the space issue. . . my spam-data database got over 300MB within a couple of weeks! And, yeah, I was processing a lot of mail, but come on. That's just not right.

    Finally, I decided it just wasn't worth it. So, I tried an alternative that the DSPAM author has spoken fairly highly of, CRM114 [sourceforge.net]. That thing rocks! Within a few days, it was catching most of the spam, it runs much faster than DSPAM or SA, and it has fixed-sized spam token databases, so unless you explicitely increase the size, they won't grow past what you set them up for.

    I can't see myself bothering with any other spam filter anytime soon.

    • Re:DSPAM. . . neat at fist, not for long. (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sounds like you weren't purging, and this was probably why you had severe space and processing issues. You can switch to TOE-mode training and make your databases as small and fast as CRM114.
      • Note again what I said: "my spam-data database got over 300MB within a couple of weeks".

        The default purge settings won't even touch the database until tokens and signatures have been in there for at least 14 days. Even after tightening up the purge settings, the database was way too big. In fact, even without purching, the databse should not have been allowed to get that big. I mean, seriously, it processes some 20MB of e-mail, and the spam database from it is over 300MB? There's something wrong with t

  • 2 errors in 22,786 (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "2 errors in 22,786"

    1 in 11,393 was too easy?

Slashdot Top Deals

It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire

Close