> Everything SpamChk > does can be done with SA rules, AFAIK (not that those > rules have been precisely reproduced as yet).
I swear we haven't tried to copy anything from the SA rules. If there is something similar then because both their and our research has identified the same "good" indicators. Beginning our work we've found something interesting and tried it out on our server. After two weeks we've had a lot of "false negatives" for this test and found out that SA has added the same test to their official rules. As I can understand spammers are investigating the well known and often implemented SA and adapt their outgoing messages to slip trough the actual rules. Especially negative points. I'm not sure about this but I wonder if spammers hasn't tried it already. > None of this is any slur whatsoever on Markus and his > handiwork, which we use as well. Anyway, SURBL will > probably get into Declude soon enough, per Scott. SpamChk does already extract all links from the body. The next step would be to implement some lookup feature - and that would be new for SpamChk. So we've decided to remain in our primary area (content based tests) without adding remote lookup functionality. There are other tests I've allready identified as good indicators. However I hope to see SURBL soon as an additional Declude test. Markus --- [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.
