On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:07, Nick Rout wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:27, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > > I am protected by the Brightmail product installed at Paradise. > > It catches about 90% or so. Leaving me to deal with about 10 at the most > > per day. So that means that pre-filtering I get of the order of 100 per > > day. A fair few of the Nigerians get through, and a few about > > prescription drugs. Brightmail seem to have got the virus plague pretty > > well under control. > > > > I have kmail filters set up so that color=#ffffff and charset=Big-5 are > > spam tags. That gets rid if a fair number too. > > � > > well brightmail won't fit in my mail chain as it doesn't pass throuugh my > isp's mailserver (and they don't filter stuff that they queue as a backup > mx) > > are you using spamassassin on your box?
No. Just as I was in the middle of "doing something about viruses and spam" Paradise introduced the Brightmail product and I found that other things were more interesting or otherwise important. However I did do a fair amount of research and experimentation. My purely subjective choice was for the SpamOricle project. I got as far as building it, training it and testing it out. It seems to go really well. I trained it with thousands of messages both good and bad. I read many well constructed and cogent arguments which suggested that SpamOricle is superior to SpamAssassin. My tests would support that. > I tend to use many different clients on many different boxes so client > filtering is no good to me. I can appreciate that. imho SpamOricle would suit you to a 'T'. http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/software.html -- Sincerely etc. Christopher Sawtell NB. This PC runs Linux. If you find a virus apparently from me, it has forged the e-mail headers on someone else's machine. Please do not notify me when this occurs. Thanks.
