David Beveridge wrote: >> I'm happy to leave the definition of spam to spamassassin, >> and leave Mr Bayes to do my thinking for me. > And therein lies the problem. > Unfortunately spamassassin is not really the best way to stop spam. > You need more. Speak for yourself. Spamassasin does a pretty good job for me. > Spamassassin should just be a tool in the toolkit not the entire solution. > It is CPU and bandwidth intensive. I get about 300 emails a day on my small system, of which about 150 are spam, as defined by SA. I don't think this is likely to burn out my (ancient) CPU. > A large proportion of spam can and should be rejected, before the body of > the email is received. I'm sure if and when such a system becomes available RedHat and CentOS will implement it, and I shall take advanage of their expertise. I assume you are speaking of a system with hundreds or thousands of users. (Do such systems still exist? I thought they had died out.) I have 4 users. Our needs are very different. Incidentally, I get email from sources who filter out spam, eg my college, and they don't seem to do a much better job than SA. I'm still invited to marry beautiful ladies from Russia. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland