Bill, Pete - >> Well, I was surprized at the difference between Sniffer (91%) and Spam >> Assassin (61%). I was particularly surprized because the Sniffer >> rulebase being used is the demo and it is restricted by 15 days. > >Yes, that is quite impressive. >> Up to now we have had sketchy info about how we compared with SA and >> most of the comments we had seen indicated that our capture rate was >> comparable. This blows that theory out of the water by 30%!!!. Well it is really out of context. That stat page just shows what how many emails failed a given test. It doesn't show accuracy. eg: false positives. Sniffer is a very good tool however it scores - at least with the demo rulebase on my system - false positives. I score it with 3 points. SA on the other hand has *very* few false positives so it gets an 8. No question if I had the registered version of sniffer I would have a better picture of its true capabilities.
>the user is running. There are a bunch of third-party cf rulesets that can >be plugged into SA that improve its performance. wow I did not know that - I will research that info. >Nick, do you happen to be running any additional rulesets, or are you simply >running the default SA rules? Yes. default + bayes -Nick Hayer >Bill > >--- >[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. > --- [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.
