Leander Koornneef wrote: > On 19-okt-2006, at 10:15, Jo Rhett wrote: > > John Andersen wrote: > > > Contemplating adding DCC to my SA config. I already do the > > > SURBL tests and Razor2. Will I likely gain any thing via this? > > > Does DCC catch what other tests miss? > > > > DCC and Razor are very similar in approach. DCC has recently lost > > a lot of community support due to policy decisions made by the guy > > who runs it, which is pretty much why Razor sprang into existence. > > > > We have them in parallel on one of our work systems, and I can't > > say that DCC is better than Razor. It catches some that Razor > > misses, but Razor seems to catch more than DCC misses. 95% of the > > time they are identical in result. > > In my experience (which is not statistically comfirmed), Razor > catches more spam than DCC. Usually if DCC hits, then Razor will > probably also hit. This is not true the other way around: if Razor > hits, DCC regularly doesn't hit. Giampaolo's comments are also > valid: if they both hit, you get higher scores, which may just be > enough to push a spam above your required_score.
I see a few more hits for Razor than DCC, but they both do pretty good. # zgrep -c RAZOR2_ maillog.1.gz 2062 # zgrep -c DCC_ maillog.1.gz 1770 Razor and DCC are a bit different. Razor tracks messages that are considered to be spam. DCC doesn't care if the message is spam or not, all it cares about is volume. If the same message is sent to lots of recipients, you can expect to match it with DCC. I find using Razor and DCC together works quite well. I used Pyzor for a while, but it didn't catch as much and used more CPU than the other two, so I removed it. -- Bowie
