Thanks for the info. Would it be possible to get your config files to compair to mine. I have gotten alot to caught but am interested in what others are using also.
Thanks again for the info. Jeff ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Todd Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:27:01 -0400 >Jeff, > >I just purchased Message Sniffer this past week. Before that, I ran >the trial version for 30 days and then produced some statistics to >prove to myself and my boss that it was worth buying. What it boiled >down to was that I was catching 12.5% more definite spam with Message >Sniffer than without it. > >A couple things that are worth mentioning... > >By "definite spam", I'm being very conservative. I don't consider >anything that has a legitimate unsubscribe method to be spam. Many >would disagree. We're a higher education institution so free speech >is a very important factor. So you may find it even more effective >than I do because it will also block some of the "newsletters" that we >as mail administrators find to be at the top of the spam scale. > >I was using the demo for 30 days so that means no updates. Using it >with frequent updates will probably produce even better results. > >Also, I have some very tweaked JunkMail weights and rules. I only use >Message Sniffer only in the weighting system. It blocks some things >that I don't consider junkmail like newsletters from emazing.com and >beliefnet.com. So if a message ONLY fails sniffer, I don't bounce it. >It has to fail one or two other tests. > >Hope this helps. For me, I expect a 12%-15% increase in accuracy and >that is worth it. I now have what I think is a VERY accurate >weighting system. I've only had two instances in about 6 months where >a remote postmaster said their mail was bouncing. In both cases they >were legitimate companies sending work-related things, but they both >were listed in one of the open relay databases so the filters worked >correctly. > >--Todd. > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jeff Kratka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 4:08 PM >Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude and Sniffer > > >> Just curious. How many people are using both Declude Junk Mail and >the >> sniffer add-on and has it made a difference if yes. I have been >completely >> pummeled with Spam and am looking for more options. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jeff >> >> ***************************************************** >> TymeWyse Internet >> P.O.Box 84 - 583 N. Main St., Canyonville, OR 97417 >> tel/fax: (541) 839-6027 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> ***************************************************** >> >> >> --- >> [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 . >> > >--- >[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 . > -- ********************************************************** TymeWyse Internet P.O.Box 84 - 583 N. Main St., Canyonville, OR 97417 tel/fax: (541) 839-6027 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ********************************************************** -- --- [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 .
