> SpamAssassin is worthless, it is a piece of shit that does nothing. This is not entirely true. Spamassassin, dspam, and all the bayesian based ones need cons

> SpamAssassin is worthless, it is a piece of shit that does nothing. This is not entirely true. Spamassassin, dspam, and all the bayesian based ones need constrant training and feedback loop to work. The time trainings lasts for is getting shorter and shorter, but it's not entirely inefficient. ( I'm running dspam on my mail box. ) Combine this with weighted blacklists ( postscreen in my case ), add dkim and dmarc checks and it's fine for a small provider. Far from ideal, but working. I'd love to see an open source implementation of what google was referring to as domain based trust, but it's also a nasty thing. I've recently tried to change my mail address from a .eu domain to a .net, and most of my mail landed in the recipients' spam folder. It's a fresh domain, no one ever sent anything from it, so I'd assume fresh domains are untrusted by default, which is really bad and is generally wrong. If the trust is not OK by default, spam is users consider it spam, that's going to kill domain based mailing, which is horrible, and gmail will be the one to blaim when we have not alternatives to few providers.