* This is the modus mailing list * Thanks for the clarification, Micha�l, now I understand the issue. So we are safe to use the SCA engine, only the results are not labeled correctly for performance reasons. I still would suggest to correct this issue, as scanning the Quarantine for false positives it helps to be able to sort after the "Normal", "Strong" and "Extreme" level.
Kai -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Modus] false positives * This is the modus mailing list * Hi Kai, I think we're not on the same page regarding my comment about "being caught on normal" This is the engine's behavior: If SCA is set at "Normal", the spam is caught using our "Normal" definition of spam and is reported as being caught on "Normal" If SCA is set at "Extreme", the spam is caught using our "Extreme" definition of spam, and is reported as being caught on "Normal" <--- This is the issue. But the settings used ARE relevant. It is just what's reported that is at fault. Normal WILL catch less spam but create less FP also, Extreme will do the opposite, as it did in the past. The new engine uses a drastically new way of catching spam, which is very successful, both for catch-rate and false positives, BUT it does need some tweaking. The Beta tests were good for bugs, but for the SCA engine when are taking advantage of the input from all our customers to tweak the engine, which we are doing right now. Micha�l Gaudette Product Manager ----- Original Message ----- From: postmaster Sent: 11/20/2003 7:37:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Modus] false positives > * This is the modus mailing list * > > Sorry Micha�l, > > but I find all this info very irritating, as if SCA is not safe on "Normal" > anymore, it leaves the "safe route" that Vircom did take with their former > antispam engines. > > With Modus 2 people were absolutely safe when they used "Normal" as a > blocking level, even "Strong" was as good as 100% safe against false > positives. The users did not have to learn anything to use this level of > protection - and did not have to "whitelist" anybody. > > Now with Modus 3 suddenly users report false positives on "normal level" and > you suggest them to use whitelists against false positives. You even say: > "Normal" doesn't mean it was caught on normal." > What does it mean then? > > We still use Modus 2 together with a refined SpamAssassing 2.60 and see > almost zero false positives while we catch almost all spam. I suggested our > users to forward their spam to me and so I do receive about 2 or 3 per week. > We found that SA combined with Modus 2 Sieve is they best and most safe > solution against spam we ever used. This solution works so good that most of > our users are protected without even knowing it - this is the way an optimal > engine should work IMHO. > > Reading the enthusiastic report about Modus 3 we wanted to upgrade as soon > as the first "refined" version comes out to benefit from an even stronger > anti-spam level. But if we cannot use the "Normal" and "Strong" level from > Modus anymore to have a *safe* backup for the spam stuff our SA engine > misses to catch, than we cannot use Modus 3 SCA at all, as our users shall > *not* have to learn anything, especially not have to think about whitelists, > they shall not even have to know that we run antivirus and antispam > protection for them if they prefer to "don't care" - what most people do. > > So please: make "Normal" safe again, otherwise we will rather have to stay a > while longer with Modus 2, even though I *love* the availability to change > the attachment/virus scanning sequence in Modus 3 (this would be our primary > reason for an upgrade). > > Finally I want to say that this mailing list did become my first source for > spam on some days in the last weeks. In former times people were posting > only when they had something relevant to say, and most of it was so > interesting that I even was reading what was not affecting us. Now there are > days where I am tempted to unsubscribe to get away from some babble that > blows up my inbox and eats up my working time. But as perhaps this is the > way things take if you become successfull (and I really wish Vircom is), I > vote for a Modus WWW forum with all kind of professional boards - and a > party lounge for all people who do not have to work and rather have a strong > desire to chat. > > Best regards > Kai Fiebach > Musikhochschule Luebeck, Germany > http://www.mh-luebeck.de > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Micha�l Gaudette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 6:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Modus] false positives > > > * This is the modus mailing list * > > Hi Christian, > > > What about the spam level settings? All our spam is blocked > > under the level "normal". We see no spam being blocked by > > "strong" or "extreme"? > > > > Are the spam level settings still relevant? > > Yes they are still relevant, but the actual information reported is not. > "Normal" doesn't mean it was caught on normal. We'll log this in our > systems. > > ** > To unsubscribe, send an Email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body or subject line. > ** To unsubscribe, send an Email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body or subject line. ** To unsubscribe, send an Email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body or subject line.
