11–20 of 26 posts
I see some interesting things like the surbl module but other than that this seems to be more like mimedefang (or that's at least what I've picked up from the landing page).
Also do you consider supporting multiple database drivers or will you stick with sqlite3?
How does rspamd compare to mopher ( http://mopher.org ) in terms of functionality? I see some interesting things like the surbl module but other than that this seems to be more like mimedefang (or that's at least what I've picked up from the landing page). Also do you consider supporting multiple database drivers or will you stick with sqlite3?
Multiple database drivers are in plans for rspamd 1.0 (along with personal statistics and advanced rules planner). The tricky stuff here is that rspamd uses non-blocking model currently which is hardly supported by database drivers (excluding redis and some others). However, rspamd has a concept of asynchronous threads executed in thread pool. So something like MySQL query could be executed within this thread pool with no delay for other filters processing.
I'd be really curious to hear feedback from anyone that has used this. I'm currently using dspam and still deal with a lot of spam hitting my inbox.
I'm a happy dspam user (most stuff won't reach me), but looked into this one in the past. Reasons for me not to give it a try: - Rule based mostly (which I think of as 'SA') - No db support, as far as I could tell. My dspam keeps everything in a postgresql db and I can easily backup/restore that with all my other stuff (dovecot/postfix virtual users, for example) - ~Easy~ to integrate into anything. Look for 'how can…
Rspamd appears to use sqlite3: https://rspamd.com/doc/workers/fuzzy_storage.html
I'd be really curious to hear feedback from anyone that has used this. I'm currently using dspam and still deal with a lot of spam hitting my inbox.
I'd be really curious to hear feedback from anyone that has used this. I'm currently using dspam and still deal with a lot of spam hitting my inbox.
I'm a happy dspam user (most stuff won't reach me), but looked into this one in the past. Reasons for me not to give it a try: - Rule based mostly (which I think of as 'SA') - No db support, as far as I could tell. My dspam keeps everything in a postgresql db and I can easily backup/restore that with all my other stuff (dovecot/postfix virtual users, for example) - ~Easy~ to integrate into anything. Look for 'how can…
Then, dspam started segfaulting, and none of my e-mail was delivered. I looked into what was going on, and it appeared that the dspam hash database had somehow become corrupted; and since dspam is completely unmaintained these days, it was unlikely that whatever bug I tripped upon would ever be fixed.
Sigh. I also would like to hear user reports about rspamd! I am getting sick of the false negative rate that I'm getting from SpamAssassin.
To me, the most important things about anti-spam systems are the false positive / false negative numbers. This information ought to be top and center, and it isn't.
This information is merely interesting for some academic researches on some very specific messages corpus. But in the real world, I cannot efficiently evaluate the accuracy because it depends on zillions of parameters. Moreover, since rspamd uses not only statistics but a number of sources, such as DNS lists, SPF, DKIM, hashes databases and so on, it is literally impossible to be determined about preciseness.
I agree that spam is a moving target and that is why anti-spam systems need constant updating. My current system (over the last 30 days) rejected 87% (around 45k emails) and accepted 13%. Of that 13% (6600) around 300 were classified as spam by the bayesian classifier in thunderbird. Around 80 were manually classified as spam and added to thunderbird's rules. The thunderbird classifier probably classified 2 ham messages as spam. I don't know of any ham->spam errors in the initial filtering phase.
Should rspamd be expected to do better, about the same, or worse?
To me, the most important things about anti-spam systems are the false positive / false negative numbers. This information ought to be top and center, and it isn't.
This information is merely interesting for some academic researches on some very specific messages corpus. But in the real world, I cannot efficiently evaluate the accuracy because it depends on zillions of parameters. Moreover, since rspamd uses not only statistics but a number of sources, such as DNS lists, SPF, DKIM, hashes databases and so on, it is literally impossible to be determined about preciseness.
No. It gives a very rough guide to "how much trouble is this spam filter going to be?". If you can say that X000 users have found only Y% of their email was misclassified, and I can compare against other spam filters, that's really useful.
So yes, too many variables for one to be accurate, but good enough to gauge average-performance across a tribe of users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This information is merely interesting for some academic researches on some very specific messages corpus. But in the real world, I cannot efficiently evaluate the accuracy because it depends on zillions of parameters. Moreover, since rspamd uses not only statistics but a number of sources, such as DNS lists, SPF, DKIM, hashes databases and so on, it is literally impossible to be determined about preciseness.
> This information is merely interesting for some academic researches on some very specific messages corpus. No. It gives a very rough guide to "how much trouble is this spam filter going to be?". If you can say that X000 users have found only Y% of their email was misclassified, and I can compare against other spam filters, that's really useful. So yes, too many variables for one to be accurate, but good enough to g…
Regarding statistics, rspamd uses OSBF-Bayes classifier and 5-gramms input (so it is not naive bayes). I've used the following academic paper: http://osbf-lua.luaforge.net/papers/osbf-eddc.pdf as reference. This algorithm is also used for crm114 spam classifier. However, bayes classifier is a very small part of rspamd (unlike dspamd, for example) and it could be almost useless if you have, let's say, 50 millions of users accounts. Rspamd is targeted for this grade systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This information is merely interesting for some academic researches on some very specific messages corpus. But in the real world, I cannot efficiently evaluate the accuracy because it depends on zillions of parameters. Moreover, since rspamd uses not only statistics but a number of sources, such as DNS lists, SPF, DKIM, hashes databases and so on, it is literally impossible to be determined about preciseness.
If I am to invest in the time and energy to switch over my current anti-solution to this, then I want to ahve some level of assurance that it will be more effective than my current scheme. I agree that spam is a moving target and that is why anti-spam systems need constant updating. My current system (over the last 30 days) rejected 87% (around 45k emails) and accepted 13%. Of that 13% (6600) around 300 were classifi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a happy dspam user (most stuff won't reach me), but looked into this one in the past. Reasons for me not to give it a try: - Rule based mostly (which I think of as 'SA') - No db support, as far as I could tell. My dspam keeps everything in a postgresql db and I can easily backup/restore that with all my other stuff (dovecot/postfix virtual users, for example) - ~Easy~ to integrate into anything. Look for 'how can…
> - No db support, as far as I could tell. My dspam keeps everything in a postgresql db and I can easily backup/restore that with all my other stuff (dovecot/postfix virtual users, for example) Rspamd appears to use sqlite3: https://rspamd.com/doc/workers/fuzzy_storage.html
Thanks, but.. That's not quite what I had in mind. For one, somedb-only (sqlite or anything else) is usually not enough. I would hesitate to introduce a system that just supports mysql when everything else is using postgresql for me, for example. And on top of that, this schema is .. limited. My dspam setup learns and can do that for each and every user (though system wide training seems to be the norm, as far as I can tell). This is really just a storage engine as far as I can tell and not really comparable.
That said: I guess I would give rspam a try if I saw a lot of positive reviews/reports. It's just that it certainly doesn't do the same thing as dspam. It's quite a different animal.