Rspamd – Fast, free and open-source spam filtering system • Hacker News Board

Re: Rspamd – Fast, free and open-source spam filtering system

#21

Post by zobzu » Fri, May 15, 2015, 1:38 AM UTC

pjsg wrote: post #16

cebka wrote: post #9

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…

For similar systems (ie small but doing good manual classification when all else fails) I suspect that if more used razor (or again, similiar) we'd achieve better results (razor allows for sharing this data automatically)

Re: Rspamd – Fast, free and open-source spam filtering system

#22

Post by zobzu » Fri, May 15, 2015, 1:40 AM UTC

rennpferd wrote: post #14

k2enemy wrote: post #3

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.

Works like a charm, my setup is postfix + dovecot + rmilter + rspamd.

seems like the perfect setup du jour, should probably document it :)

Re: Rspamd – Fast, free and open-source spam filtering system

#23

Post by rennpferd » Sat, May 16, 2015, 6:58 AM UTC

zobzu wrote: post #22

rennpferd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Works like a charm, my setup is postfix + dovecot + rmilter + rspamd.

seems like the perfect setup du jour, should probably document it :)

Yeah, should've documented it while I was setting it up...

Re: Rspamd – Fast, free and open-source spam filtering system

#24

Post by hobarrera » Sat, May 16, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

cebka wrote: post #9

pjsg wrote: post #8

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.

> This information is merely interesting for some academic researches

It most definitely is not. It's the most important factor when choosing a spam filter.

False positives are extremely harmful (it can result in loss of communication, which is what you want to avoid the most). A significant amount of false positives is what would make the difference between useful or useless.

Nobody want to tell their users "check your spam mailbox, (the one with dozens of spam messages) for ham every once in a while)".

Re: Rspamd – Fast, free and open-source spam filtering system

#25

Post by hobarrera » Sat, May 16, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

noinsight wrote: post #7

I have just been using OpenBSD's spamd and I haven't had any problems with spam. And I like to know I'm messing with the spammers too.

Indeed. I was getting a few of dozen spam messages per week. Setting up spamd reduced that to less than a dozen per year. Regrettably, 2015 is the years this seems to be ending, since I've already gotten about 8-10 spam messages this year (with the majority being this last month).

Re: Rspamd – Fast, free and open-source spam filtering system

#26

Post by EmanueleAina » Tue, May 19, 2015, 10:38 AM UTC

hobarrera wrote: post #24

cebka wrote: post #9

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 It most definitely is not. It's the most important factor when choosing a spam filter. False positives are extremely harmful (it can result in loss of communication, which is what you want to avoid the most). A significant amount of false positives is what would make the difference between useful or useless. Nobody want to tell their users "check y…

As I see it, unless you can guarantee that you give zero false positives (which, knowing how certain users compose their mail, is arguably impossible) you still have to do it.

Also I suppose that the false positive/negative rate can only be given on a well defined corpus, I'm not sure there is one that is a good representation of the current and future spam trends, so in the end giving those numbers could be very misleading.