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
Wel.. I'd say wait for SA 2.50 wiht bayes support.. It will kick
snortmonsters butt.. IMHO..
It also seemed like snortmonster may have caught more of the under 7 range..
it it also detected less spam
> However, of those, sniffer said 50 were not spam. Examining them
> reveals that 49 were indee
