Bret Miller wrote: >> 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.
I'm using http://www.sanesecurity.com/clamav/ (on my home domain only at the moment) which saves sa some work (clamav runs before sa). About a third of the spam that was previously caught by sa is now caught by clamav instead. I tried MSRBL, but got very few hits. Sorry - no info about false positives, because anything that hits is rejected. I haven't heard from anyone, though.
I'm surprised by how effective it is. Chris
