> I'm more interested in the Image signatures it has. If > they're really > useful and reliable. I expect that keeping up with image > spam wouldn't > be very scalable, but it might at least help reduce some load > (since we > do virus scanning before letting Spam Assassin see a message) for > whichever images are known. >
I ran about half a day yesterday with both images and spam signatures. Images hit a whopping 4 messages and spam hit about 40 with 3 FPs, both a very, very low percentage (way under 1%) of spam. ImageInfo does a much better job IMO. Bret
