Ultimately anything contributing signatures to the Razor database must apply
sufficiently similar algorithms for the database to be of any value to the
client. That means at the very least generating and submitting VR1, VR2 and VR4
hashes/signatures. I'm not up to speed on the current situation with Nilsimsa
signatures so won't comment on VR3.
Nilsimsa is dead and has been more-or-less since shortly after the release of Razor2. It was buggy and had collisions.
In fact, the only hash supported by Razor and the servers at this time is VR4 (Although VR4 devolves to behavior much like VR1 (full-text hash) for short messages)
>Don't know about SpamNet.
The SpamNet client "does everything", ergo it generates and submits signatures as instructed.
Yes, but there are differences between spamnet and Razor beyond this.. Specifically, the spamnet client supports additional algorithms that Razor client does not.
Specifically mentioned by Vipul is the "whiplash" hash algorithm, that is currently being ported from spamnet to Razor. Apparently whiplash is the main reason why spamnet has a better catch rate than Razor at present.
However, if you're testing with both spamnet and razor, it is possible someone's found a way of mutating spam sufficiently to avoid all of the algorithms even in spamnet. However, none of us, outside of the employees of Cloudmark, know enough about the internals of spamnet to comment on the matter other than pure speculation.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
