John Rudd said: > 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 did some testing of the image signature/clamav filter a few months back and I found it effective against a few series of spams... but the problem is that these series of spams were typically **already** caught through multiple other types of spam filtering and the really tricky and hard to catch image spams were missed by MSRBL. Why? Because the tricky kinds send out a slightly altered image for every single spam and MSRBL's image catching technique is ONLY effective where the image is stays the same. This would have been a great tool 2-3 years ago. Oh well. Rob McEwen PowerView Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
