On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 18:50, Brian May wrote:
> Wel.. I'd say wait for SA 2.50 wiht bayes support.. It will kick
> snortmonsters butt.. IMHO..
Agree. I'm currently using sa 2.43 in a feedback loop together with
bogofilter (bogofilter is trained according to spamassassin's decision,
and bogofilte
I thought I'd check this out, but had trouble finding it. In case anyone
else is curious, it's 'sortmonster' and here's a link:
http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/
I wasn't able to get the demo working and am not willing to spend too much
time trying, but frankly I wasn't too impressed wit
On 2002-12-31 12:03:57 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> Next, I scanned 482 spams that snuck through SA and reached my mailbox
> over the last three months (ie, scored < 7.0 in SA). That took 21.89
7 is way too much. I've set the score to 3, use some white- and
blacklists and adjusted some scores and
hat 49 were indeed spam, and one was not. So SA flagged more
> spam messages as spam
- Original Message -
From: "Vivek Khera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Spam Tools" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 9:03 AM
Subj
Having heard some good things about SnortMonster's MessageSniffer, I
decided to give it a try to see if should use it in place of
SpamAssassin. I downloaded the demo yesterday, which has a rule file
dated December 26, 2002. SA is running version 2.43 with RBL checks
off since my inbound server do
