C. Bensend wrote:
I beg to disagree with your above statement - I run with all
network tests disabled, and I have a fantastic detection rate.
Granted, there will always be exceptions (I probably am one).
But, using completely stock rules, no SARE, and no network tests
still proves extremely accurate for me. Yay Bayes! :)
Ah - Bayes... I didn't mention that. Running it in a site-wide
configuration, I have (historically) found that it quickly gets
"corrupted" - providing bad results. So I always disable it
However, if you invest time into managing Bayes (i.e. telling it what is
ham and what is spam) - then obviously there are rewards.
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the 'Do More With Dual!' webinar happening
July 14 at 8am PDT/11am EDT. We invite you to explore the latest in dual
core and dual graphics technology at this free one hour event hosted by HP,
AMD, and NVIDIA. To register visit http://www.hp.com/go/dualwebinar
_______________________________________________
Qmail-scanner-general mailing list
Qmail-scanner-general@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general
