David Baron wrote:
> On Sunday 13 August 2006 18:44, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 09:08:50AM -0400, Michael Di Martino wrote:
> > > So how does razor differ over SA's ruleset?
> >
> > Razor compares MIME part hashes and URI domain hashes to a central
> > database where people
So one does not need to actually use Razor explicitely?
One does not need to use razor at all. It is a network test, and you can
run with network test disabled. You can also run with network tests
enabled, but specifically disable Razor. And I'm sure there are many admins
that do this for
On Sunday 13 August 2006 18:44, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 09:08:50AM -0400, Michael Di Martino wrote:
> > So how does razor differ over SA's ruleset?
>
> Razor compares MIME part hashes and URI domain hashes to a central
> database where people have reported that "this is spa
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Michael Di Martino wrote:
> > Which is best and what do these actauly offer over spamassassin's own
> > rulesets?
>
> So how does razor differ over SA's ruleset?
The basic difference is that SA rules try to analyze the message to
determine "does this message look like spam?
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 09:08:50AM -0400, Michael Di Martino wrote:
> So how does razor differ over SA's ruleset?
Razor compares MIME part hashes and URI domain hashes to a central
database where people have reported that "this is spam".
SA's ruleset looks for spammy components of messages, inclu
Michael Di Martino writes:
> > Which is best and what do these actauly offer over spamassassin's own
> > rulesets?
> >
>
> So how does razor differ over SA's ruleset?
it's entirely different -- it's a hash-sharing system, with parts
similar to SURBL. Hard to tell, really, though, as it's prop
