Steve Lee: > I use Spamcop for filtering rather than TB or any other local product as > I find Spamcop usually very accurate with very few false positives but I > found 24 trapped messages from this group yesterday where I might expect > to find only 1 or 2 and identifying them so I can whitelist them would > have been easier the way I describe.
I also use SpamCop - but I probably use it in a *very* different way than other SpamCop-users. I use SpamCop in a nominative way. I would say that SpamCop does a pretty good job, BUT if you enable something like list.dsbl.org you will see quite a lot of false identifying. What I do is to nominate the SpamCop/SpamAssassin blocked messages and then value them against my own system etc. That most often lets legit mail thru even when they would have been blocked SpamCop/SpamAssassin. At the same time, spam would be blocked since spammy messages almost always have something in there that shows they are spam or virus noise. It has taken me some time (2 years or so) to develop my anti-spam system, and I am happy to see it has about 99.7 percent S/N Ratio. Personally, it gives me a good feeling being able to fight spam this effective. Roman Katzer: > Neat. Can you post it somewhere? With it's source maybe? Sorry, but at this time the system is not easily installable. It would require special support from me, and I don't have the time. The features are many - but undocumented... ;/ As is, the system is not even having a decent GUI - I administrate the system by updating files and registry settings. Since I know my system, that way of maintaining it is just as fast, I guess... :) -- St ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
