http://www.conninc.com/SniffervsIP4R_Day.gif shows the last 24 hrs of inbound processed mail.
http://www.conninc.com/SnifferLevels_Day.gif shows the overall effectiveness of the individual sniffer tests. Some names were slightly changed, and group 60 is still reported as greymail (yes, I know it was graymail), but you can get the drift. An m after the number represents a portion under 1. So 582m %would be read as 0.582%
Averaging ~2.5 messages a second, Sniffer fired a warning on 2.2 of them, while SpamCop (one of our most aggressive IP4R tests) only fired on 1.4 of them. False positives with Sniffer are virtually nonexistant (none in the last 6 months)! Our most hit groups are the Spam group (62) followed closely by the former Graymail group (60). I've got no clue what my sensitivity level is, so I would have to assume it is set to the default.
To any that question the value of sortmonster, it's very much worth every penny!
Keep up the great work.
John Weiner
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Colbeck, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] It's worth it
On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 1:14:00 AM, Andrew wrote:
CA> So, I've been using the "free trial edition" of Sniffer for CA> the better part of 2 years (wow, time flies!) and just purchased CA> two licences. CA> CA> On a message volume of 18,000 messages (14,000 spam) I used CA> to see the "free trial edition" trigger on 2,000 with very low CA> false positives. Now, it's more like 13,000 with no change in CA> the false positives. CA> CA> Thanks, SortMonster!
:-)
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
