> Do you find that using it along with the default
> testsWEIGHT10 and WEIGHT20 are sufficient for your needs?
I've only used it a short time and it is not integrated into my weights
completely. Anything 20 and over in my tests is deleted or if it's on the
ImageFXOnline (Thank you) kill list, it
Believe it or not, I actually think I do understand what's going on with the
weighting definitions in the tests. Like these 2 default tests from
GLOBAL.CFG...
MAILFROMenvfrom x x 12 0
IPNOTINMX ipnotinmx x x 0 -3
The first field is the name of the test. The second field is the type o
Dan,
Sniffer has made a huge difference for us. We weight the test a 12 and flag emails as
Spam at 15. We only ran for a couple of months without it, but I watch our logs very
closely and the benefit of using Sniffer is significant.
Sniffer is an entirely different type of test from Declude.
Hello, All,
For most of you who use Message Sniffer:
Do you find that using it along with the default testsWEIGHT10 and WEIGHT20
are sufficient for your needs?
How integral of an addition to Declude.JunkMail is Message Sniffer? Does it
make an earth-shattering difference in what your spam-filter
Howdy, Scott,
> > > SPAM-NONE weightrange x x 0 4
> > > SPAM-VLOW weightrange x x 5 9
> > > SPAM-LOW weightrange x x 10 14
> > > SPAM-MID weightrange x x 15 19
> > > SPAM-HIGH weightrange x x 20 29
> > > SPAM-VHIGH weight x x 30 0
> >
> >So if I am understanding what you have written above correct
Hi, George,
> I feel that this is as much art as science and that there's no simple 'one
> size fits all' solution. I haven't done any hard statistical testing but
> here's my setup.
Trust me, I definitely understand that. If there was a one-size fits all
GLOBAL.CFG and/or $default$.junkmail th
>From my point of view, a false positive is a false positive is a false
positive. I just need to make sure that a message has to fail more than the
BADHEADERS test to get rejected.
On the other hand, with this attitude, it will be impossible to stop
viruses in the future.
The problem is that
Hey, Scott,
> The first thing to remember is that no one spam test is perfect, and all
> spam tests will have some false positives (which is what the weighting
> system really helps out with).
Yes, that concept is pretty easy for me to understand from an intellectual
level. I mean if there was a
We've here a constant value of 10 - 12% during workday and around 30% on
weekends. This because during weekends there are not so much real
messages. The values are based on a system with 350 domains 650
mailboxes and 2500 incomming messages/day.
Reporting from 01/01/2003 to yesterday on my persona
The average spam/ham ratio for reported logs in Message Sniffer is
70%-75%. That is, 70%-75% of messages on average are spam. This is a
small sample (about 20 systems on average) but it has been a very
consistent range.
_M
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL P
I agree with Scott that Dan has asked some very good questions, not only in
this thread, but others as well. And unlike me when I first started with
Declude, he is asking the *right* questions. Keep at it, Dan, since you are
on the right track. Your questions are helping others as well (myself
i
11 matches
Mail list logo
