|
I'm trying the trial version of MessageSniffer, but
it won't last for long before hitting the limit. Does anybody have a
suggestion for what weight to assign to it? I'm using action SUBJECT on
Weight10, and ATTACH for Weight14 or higher. How accurate is
MessageSniffer taken by itself? Accurate enough to go with weight
10?
Glenn Z.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 6:13
PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spammers
getting smarter?
>Some ideas on going to the next
level:
>
>a)give the SpamCop test a weight heavy enough to fail a
message on its
>own. Imperfect at best.
>
>b) use
that permission-based Declude thingie discussed here a while
>ago. Inconvenient to some.
>
>c) subscribe to a
blacklist that somebody maintains and that interfaces
>with Declude
(which ain't hard). I certainly don't have the time to keep
>one
maintained. Plus, as soon as one address is blocked... you can fill
>in the rest.
>
>d) a combination of the above.
...
and "e", Message Sniffer ( http://www.sortmonster.com ), which has
the
same advantage of the DNS-based spam tests (it's constantly updated),
but
since it works by analyzing the content (rather than the source) of
the
E-mail, it can catch a lot of the mail that the DNS-based tests
don't. It
does cost money (and no, we don't get a commission
<G>), but is worth
considering if you're getting much spam that
doesn't fail any of the
tests.
-Scott
---
[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". You can E-mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for
assistance. You can visit our web
site at http://www.declude.com
.
|
