Hi, I was just wondering if SpamBayes is still in development? I noticed you still have the same Alpha version as of June of 2007. It appears dead, which is too bad since I liked the product and still use the alpha. John
John> I was just wondering if SpamBayes is still in development? I John> noticed you still have the same Alpha version as of June of 2007. John> It appears dead, which is too bad since I liked the product and John> still use the alpha. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 Not dead. Just resting. We've had few available resources for development the last couple years, especially on Windows. SpamBayes itself is still very much alive though. -- Skip Montanaro - skip@pobox.com - http://www.smontanaro.net/ "XML sucks, dictionaries rock" - Dave Beazley
On Sat, April 11, 2009 16:02, John VanSickle wrote:
Hi,
I was just wondering if SpamBayes is still in development? I noticed you still have the same Alpha version as of June of 2007. It appears dead, which is too bad since I liked the product and still use the alpha.
I don't think it is dead. It gives no errors for me. And when a product is finished, does it need further development? I don't think so: when it works, don't break it. -- Amedee (just a spambayes user like you)
Amedee Van Gasse (amedee.be) wrote:
On Sat, April 11, 2009 16:02, John VanSickle wrote:
Hi,
I was just wondering if SpamBayes is still in development? I noticed you still have the same Alpha version as of June of 2007. It appears dead, which is too bad since I liked the product and still use the alpha.
I don't think it is dead. It gives no errors for me. And when a product is finished, does it need further development? I don't think so: when it works, don't break it.
If an anti-spam product were truly finished it would delete all spam, keep all good mail, and never need updating/tweaking/training. Spambayes is therefore not finished. IMO, the moment a single spam message enters my inbox, that is an error. The moment a good e-mail that should have entered my inbox is, instead, deleted, that is an error as well. For the most part, Spambayes works, but it falls flat on its face quite often. -- Thomas Hruska CubicleSoft President Ph: 517-803-4197 *NEW* MyTaskFocus 1.1 Get on task. Stay on task. http://www.CubicleSoft.com/MyTaskFocus/
Thomas> If an anti-spam product were truly finished it would delete all Thomas> spam, keep all good mail, and never need Thomas> updating/tweaking/training. Spambayes is therefore not Thomas> finished. Thomas> IMO, the moment a single spam message enters my inbox, that is Thomas> an error. The moment a good e-mail that should have entered my Thomas> inbox is, instead, deleted, that is an error as well. For the Thomas> most part, Spambayes works, but it falls flat on its face quite Thomas> often. Do you have time to contribute to making SpamBayes better? Those of us who work on SpamBayes or who have done so in the past have done it in our spare time. Nobody is getting rich off this code ignoring your complaints that it isn't perfect. -- Skip Montanaro - skip@pobox.com - http://www.smontanaro.net/ "XML sucks, dictionaries rock" - Dave Beazley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Hruska schreef:
Amedee Van Gasse (amedee.be) wrote:
On Sat, April 11, 2009 16:02, John VanSickle wrote:
Hi,
I was just wondering if SpamBayes is still in development? I noticed you still have the same Alpha version as of June of 2007. It appears dead, which is too bad since I liked the product and still use the alpha.
I don't think it is dead. It gives no errors for me. And when a product is finished, does it need further development? I don't think so: when it works, don't break it.
If an anti-spam product were truly finished it would delete all spam, keep all good mail, and never need updating/tweaking/training. Spambayes is therefore not finished.
IMO, the moment a single spam message enters my inbox, that is an error. The moment a good e-mail that should have entered my inbox is, instead, deleted, that is an error as well. For the most part, Spambayes works, but it falls flat on its face quite often.
Funny, I have a different opinion about anti-spam. I don't think that anti-spam has to eliminate spam, only that it has to reduce it to tolerable levels. With the current state of technology and the constant changing nature of spam, it is impossible to construct an anti-spam product that is perfect according to your definition. You would need an artificial intelligence like in science fiction, and even then they wouldn't know the difference between a tortoise and a turtle. If anyone is going to make a sentient SpamBayes, please include this line in the code: http://xkcd.com/534/ - -- Amedee -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknjJCwACgkQxc/p9jmqUL6OnQCg6sB2HKddsIUodks1RFEFaVuX QEIAoJiCSRtvn3QPaMvp0XW+O6B0vcXz =rEJf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (5)
-
Amedee Van Gasse -
Amedee Van Gasse (amedee.be)
-
John VanSickle -
skip＠pobox.com -
Thomas Hruska