ster.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Ulrich
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:17 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail]
TECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Ulrich
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:17 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer
>
> Do you have to configure a service with FireDaemon to check every
Do you have to configure a service with FireDaemon to check every hour or
does it do it automatically by itself?
At 01:07 PM 12/13/2004, you wrote:
Hi,
It's highly recommended. I accounts for 70% of my "hold" weight and it is
very much on target with very few false positives.
Rules are updated i
> It looks like it scores pretty well...
>
> http://www2.spamchk.com/public.html
Yes I can confirm this. (The results you can see on the link above are
results on my Mailserver)
I can highly recommend Messagesniffer because the rules are always up to
date (2 - 4 each day) and as you can see hig
Chris,
Sniffer will catch ~96% of all spam with 99.8% accuracy (on my system at
least). While building redundancies is important in any system, it is
the single most effective tool that is available to Declude users, and
it fulfills a large part of the content filtering that you have been
atte
Hi Chris,
I suspect that you'll find that many of the Declude users are this list are
also using MessageSniffer. We only recently began using it and can tell you
that we saw a dramatic increase in spam catches when we did so.
If you look in your global.cfg file, you'll see there is already a
Hi,
It's highly recommended. I accounts for 70% of my "hold" weight and it is
very much on target with very few false positives.
Rules are updated in a "rules" file and I check for updates hourly.
It has really helped with dealing with "new outbreaks" of SPAM before the
Ips are on various black
Behalf Of Chris Ulrich
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:03 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer
>
> It looks like it scores pretty well...
>
> http://www2.spamchk.com/public.html
>
> That said, and I'
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Katie
LaSalle-Lowery
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer
Hi Chris,
I suspect that you'll find that many of the Declude users are this
It looks like it scores pretty well...
http://www2.spamchk.com/public.html
That said, and I'm embarrassed to ask two questions in one day, but what
experiences have people had with
SpamChk as well? Are people running the "stable version" (dated 7/29/03)
or the "beta" (dated 1/31/04)
Doesn't see
I've never heard of it.
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Ulrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 12:45 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer
> Is anyone using this product as part of their filtering?
>
> http:/
11 matches
Mail list logo
