Hello Andrew, Tuesday, June 6, 2006, 11:44:46 AM, you wrote:
> David, > Are you using the free version of sniffer? Or did you deliberately > change your .exe name in your posting to sniffer.exe to hide your licence > number? > I certainly expect that the rulebase lag with the free version will > result in lower Message Sniffer hit rates. Actually, since we've been offering production ready 30 day trials, what once was the "free" version (as you put it) has been reduced to a technology demonstrator. It is only useful for proving your system configuration and barely catches spam at all ;-) I believe the sniffer.snf rulebase has not been maintained in some time. > I've seen the free version with hit rates as low as 10% on the > remaining messages that have been already filtered by a gateway, > which I thought was still decent because these were the messages > that had already evaded the blacklist tests. And free is good. > On the same system, I noted that this made Sniffer about half as > effective as fresh SURBL/URIBL testing, but I had no way to compare their > overlap. Interesting. _M -- Pete McNeil Chief Scientist, Arm Research Labs, LLC. ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <sniffer@sortmonster.com>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
