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:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]>. 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: <[email protected]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[email protected]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[email protected]> Send administrative queries to <[email protected]> ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <[email protected]>. 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: <[email protected]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[email protected]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[email protected]> Send administrative queries to <[email protected]>
