> It looks like it scores pretty well... > > http://www2.spamchk.com/public.html
Yes I can confirm this. (The results you can see on the link above are results on my Mailserver) I can highly recommend Messagesniffer because the rules are always up to date (2 - 4 each day) and as you can see highly reliable. If you've running this test I recommend splitting it up in different tests for the different return codes. As you can see in the results above most return codes are very reliable. So you can set also a very high weight (70 up to 100% of your hold weight) to this result codes. > That said, and I'm embarrassed to ask two questions in one > day, but what experiences have people had with SpamChk as > well? Are people running the "stable version" (dated > 7/29/03) or the "beta" (dated 1/31/04) SpamChk was a result of some missing "features" in recent (2 years ago) releases of declude junkmail. My friend Wolfgang and I decided to implement this external test as a sub-set of different content based tests. SpamChk does NOT provide automatic updates as Sniffer does. I consider it a swiss army knife and we have some ideas for new features. You can easily use the latest beta of Spamchk. SpamChk it's not a test that clearly says "yes it's spam" or "no it's ham". This external test will return his sum of points to declude's weighting system. If there are many indicators of spam it can return also - let's say - 500 points. On the other side SpamChk can also return only one single point. And SpamChk can also return negative weights if there are many indicators for a legit message. Markus --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
