I wonder whether it doesn't become a solution in search of a problem.  David
Gregg over at mxGuard is small to be sure and on the licensing plan he's
used in recent years I suppose mxGuard might quite working if he ceased
doing business; however, his product is very reasonably priced, very light
weight in terms of CPU load and from everything we've seen over 7 years or
so, absolutely reliable.  When I looked into converting one of our servers
over to SmarterMail there seemed to be some thinking that the SpamAssassin
that would install automatically might create problems at what seemed to be
modest traffic levels so we chose not to enable it.  Running a separate
SpamAssassin server would be simple enough but if what we gain from it is
simply the ability to use Sniffer I'm not sure it's superior to the mxGuard
approach.

I haven't looked at what would be involved (and have actually found a few
things I like about inserting Sniffer in ahead of the rest of the processes)
but being able to fully integrate Sniffer into the SmarterMail GUI and
reporting might be more interesting than simply finding a free way of
shoehorning it in.  I say this until I wake up and find mxGuard out of
business of course.  I think it would be almost trivial to write something
to replace mxGuard's ability to integrate Sniffer using the SmarterMail PROC
hooks if something did go wrong but have appreciated the work David has done
even if we don't use any of the other hooks any more so haven't had any
interest in competing and at $100 my time is worth more to me in terms of
doing it just for our own use.

I understand it's probably a good move for ARM though as long as most
SmarterMail sites do use SpamAssassin.



-----Original Message-----
From: Message Sniffer Community [mailto:snif...@sortmonster.com] On Behalf
Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:29 PM
To: Message Sniffer Community
Subject: [sniffer] Re: Direct SmarterMail integration -- Some Testers ?

On 6/9/2010 6:15 PM, David Moore wrote:
> We use MX Guard / Invuribl / Sniffer combo would it be a matter of 
> removing Sniffer from the MXGuard.ini ? I would still like to use all 
> 3 options.

Theoretically that should work... so that you don't call SNF twice.

What SNF is going to do in the SM command line is simply add headers to 
the message.
Then, you can add some rules to SMs SpamAssassin to convert those 
headers to weights.

_M

-- 
Chief Scientist
ARM Research Labs, LLC
www.armresearch.com


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <sniffer@sortmonster.com>.
This list is for discussing Message Sniffer,
Anti-spam, Anti-Malware, and related email topics.
For More information see http://www.armresearch.com
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <sniffer-...@sortmonster.com>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <sniffer-dig...@sortmonster.com>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <sniffer-in...@sortmonster.com>
Send administrative queries to  <sniffer-requ...@sortmonster.com>




#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <sniffer@sortmonster.com>.
This list is for discussing Message Sniffer,
Anti-spam, Anti-Malware, and related email topics.
For More information see http://www.armresearch.com
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <sniffer-...@sortmonster.com>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <sniffer-dig...@sortmonster.com>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <sniffer-in...@sortmonster.com>
Send administrative queries to  <sniffer-requ...@sortmonster.com>

Reply via email to