Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

On 16-Nov-2009, at 07:00, Justin Mason wrote: > First -- my name is not Jim. Secondly -- I don't care what Spamhaus > does, I'm asking what you suggest SpamAssassin do to measure FPs. Thirdly, don't TOFU post (at least twice as bad as Top-posting). -- May the forces of evil become confused on

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 14:00 +, Justin Mason wrote: > First -- my name is not Jim. Secondly -- I don't care what Spamhaus > does, I'm asking what you suggest SpamAssassin do to measure FPs. Is that a core feature of spamassassin Just in? Is it necessary to have that data? Will 'Hey, I noticed

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

lly use this on my own spamassassin >> >> server. >> >> >> >> = >> >> SPAMCOP Dangerous? >> >> = >> >> SPAM%    HAM%    RANK RULE >> >> 17.4225% 2.6076% 0.56 RCVD_IN_BL_SP

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: You neglected to trim my name from your post making it look like the hrmm... that is not how alpine showed it... That said {don't you just lurvvee net policemen} I do have to laugh that the BRBL has mysql.com listed, given it sits at the he

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 17:21 +1000, Res wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > > safe. BRBL has a high hit rate as well, with a moderate safety rating. > > Wondered why i wasn't getting anything from mysql.com for over a week, > BRBL has them listed :) > You neglecte

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: safe. BRBL has a high hit rate as well, with a moderate safety rating. Wondered why i wasn't getting anything from mysql.com for over a week, BRBL has them listed :) -- Res "What does Windows have that Linux doesn't?" - One hell of a lot

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

>> = > >> SPAM%HAM%RANK RULE > >> 17.4225% 2.6076% 0.56 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET * > >> > >> Commentary: > >> Is Spamcop seriously this bad? It consistently has shown a high false > >> positive rates in these past

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

osted only RANK because it seems to be most influenced by safety, which is the goal of this particular comparison. Warren

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

> SPAM%    HAM%    RANK RULE > 12.8342% 0.0021% 0.94 RCVD_IN_PSBL * > 12.3053% 0.0026% 0.94 RCVD_IN_XBL > 31.2499% 0.0827% 0.87 RCVD_IN_ANBREP_BL *2 > 80.2578% 0.1485% 0.86 RCVD_IN_PBL > 27.1836% 0.1985% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL > 19.8213% 0.1785% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK * > 90.9360% 0.3854% 0.77 RCVD_

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

.6076% 0.56 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET * >> >> Commentary: >> Is Spamcop seriously this bad?  It consistently has shown a high false >> positive rates in these past weeks.  Was it safer than this in the past >> to warrant the current high score in spamassassin-3.2.5? >> >> Warren Togami >> wtog...@redhat.com > > Is it not a bit flawed to do the metrics on volunteer submissions, given > the Spamhaus has is said to have a small army of them? It means the data > cannot be relied upon as any kind of sensible comparison. please explain. How would you suggest measuring false positives? -- --j.

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

then we would be out of business. Your results are inconsistent with two other comparison lists. http://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/blacklist.php_dnsbl=RCVD_IN_JMF_BL.html http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20091114-r836144-n http://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/index.php Both of

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

were typical then we would be out of business. Your results are inconsistent with two other comparison lists. http://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/blacklist.php_dnsbl=RCVD_IN_JMF_BL.html http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html Additionally results vary depending on where you get your spam

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: >>> === >>> HOSTKARMA_BL much better as URIBL >>> === >>> SPAM%HAM%RANK RULE >>> 68.3651% 0.2806% 0.79 URIBL_HOSTKARMA_BL * > > How do you check return values? There i

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

Hi! 27.1836% 0.1985% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 19.8213% 0.1785% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK * 90.9360% 0.3854% 0.77 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT 13.0564% 0.4838% 0.67 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL * * It is clear that the two main blacklists are Spamhaus and BRBL. The Zen combinatoin of Spamhaus zones is extremely ef

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091114

ren Togami > wtog...@redhat.com Is it not a bit flawed to do the metrics on volunteer submissions, given the Spamhaus has is said to have a small army of them? It means the data cannot be relied upon as any kind of sensible comparison.

DNSBL Comparison 20091114

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e Compare this report to a similar report last month. http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck The results below are only as good as the data submitted by nightly masscheck volunte

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

On tir 13 okt 2009 16:22:55 CEST, "McDonald, Dan" wrote On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 15:42 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote: >>> Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, t

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 15:42 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote > >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote: > >>> Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this > >>> data seems to confirm the good reputation of

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

> On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote: >>> Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this >>> data seems to confirm the good reputation of Spamhaus. >> Er.. Zen is a combination of SBL, XBL, and PBL. Not just t

Re: [SA] DNSBL Comparison 20091010

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:10:17PM -0400, Adam Katz wrote: > > Here are the default scores for the DNSWLs I know of: > > RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 0 -1 0 -1 > RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED 0 -4 0 -4 > RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 0 -8 0 -8 > RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -5 # (nondefault rule, Marc's suggested score) You have to remembe

Re: [SA] DNSBL Comparison 20091010

Matthias Leisi wrote (accidentally off-list): > Adam Katz schrieb: > >> My last report was sent at 2009-04-10 17:50:30 UTC to ad...@dnswl.org >> with subject "Suggested Change DNSWL Id 3523" > > That's cvent-planner.com. Based on your report and others we received, > we lowered the score for thei

Re: [SA] DNSBL Comparison 20091010

Matthias Leisi wrote: > Did you report them to us? If there are *myriads*, there must be some > serious error which we need to fix (IPs/ranges falsely listed, > inappropriate trust levels listed, sometimes also errors in eg how > trusted_networks are set up). My last report was sent at 2009-04-10

Re: [SA] DNSBL Comparison 20091010

Benny Pedersen wrote: > On søn 11 okt 2009 07:19:47 CEST, Adam Katz wrote > >> different return code to indicate the hit anyway so that I can act on it >> anyway. *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism. > > spamassassin have firsttrusted for dnsbl same can go for dnswl testi

Re: [SA] DNSBL Comparison 20091010

Adam Katz schrieb: > I've had myriads of falsely whitelisted messages hit DNSWL (.org) and Did you report them to us? If there are *myriads*, there must be some serious error which we need to fix (IPs/ranges falsely listed, inappropriate trust levels listed, sometimes also errors in eg how trus

Re: [SA] DNSBL Comparison 20091010

Henrik K wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:19:47AM -0400, Adam Katz wrote: >> *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism. >> >> I have seen SO much DNSWL'd spam that I've had to migrate to using > > Just to be clear, what DNSWLs are you talking about? It's a bit > confusing as t

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

Warren Togami wrote: The following is an apples to apples comparisons of DNSBL lastexternal rules against the October 10th, 2009 weekly_mass_check corpora. HOSTKARMA and SEM are new. Hopefully these masscheck results can help to identify problems so list quality can improve over time. http

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

Just a few comments and corrections. On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 19:44 -0400, Warren Togami wrote: > The following is an apples to apples comparisons of DNSBL lastexternal Minor nit: Not entirely correct. Different lists have different listing policies and criteria. A PBL listing for example does NOT

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

On søn 11 okt 2009 07:19:47 CEST, Adam Katz wrote different return code to indicate the hit anyway so that I can act on it anyway. *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism. spamassassin have firsttrusted for dnsbl same can go for dnswl testing that mean if you have none or

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:19:47AM -0400, Adam Katz wrote: > *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism. > > I have seen SO much DNSWL'd spam that I've had to migrate to using Just to be clear, what DNSWLs are you talking about? It's a bit confusing as the official DNSWL is calle

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

Warren Togami wrote: > Overlap analysis shows the majority of XBL and PBL are also listed by > Barracuda. Furthermore Barracuda's list seems to have a similar hit > % as XBL + PBL combined. Is Barracuda known to aggregate Spamhaus > data with their own? If so we might be adding redundant scores

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

On 10/10/2009 09:10 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote: Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this data seems to confirm the good reputation of Spamhaus. Er.. Zen is a combinatio

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote: Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this data seems to confirm the good reputation of Spamhaus. Er.. Zen is a combination of SBL, XBL, and PBL. Not just the XBL and P

DNSBL Comparison 20091010

URIBL comparisons. http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20091010-r823821-n 128161 Spam 185199 Ham == URIBL Comparison by Safety == SPAM%HAM%RANK RULE 50.5349% 0% 1.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL 60.4256% 0.0059% 0.99 URIBL_JP_SURBL 55.0542% 0.0113% 0.98

DNS Whitelist Comparison 20091010

The following is a comparison of DNS whitelist rules against the October 10th, 2009 weekly_mass_check corpora. http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20091010-r823821-n 128161 Spam 185199 Ham DNS Whitelists by Safety SPAM% HAM%RANK RULE 0.0016

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

On 10/10/2009 08:55 PM, João Gouveia wrote: Hi Warren, If you don't mind me asking, how does this kind of comparison take into account the dynamic nature of zombie infected machines? For example, an IP address may be infected at some point, and be listed in XBL, but later the client IP ad

Re: DNSBL Comparison 20091010

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wrote: > Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this > data seems to confirm the good reputation of Spamhaus. Er.. Zen is a combination of SBL, XBL, and PBL. Not just the XBL and PBL.

DNSBL Comparison 20091010

The following is an apples to apples comparisons of DNSBL lastexternal rules against the October 10th, 2009 weekly_mass_check corpora. HOSTKARMA and SEM are new. Hopefully these masscheck results can help to identify problems so list quality can improve over time. http://ruleqa.spamassassin.o

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 10:00 +0100, Justin Mason wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 22:59, mouss wrote: > > Justin Mason a écrit : > >> In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more > >> recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help > >> out. Comparative thi

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 22:59, mouss wrote: > Justin Mason a écrit : >> In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more >> recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help >> out.  Comparative third-party tests like this always take a lot of >> hand-holding.  W

RE: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

> -Original Message- > From: mouss [mailto:mo...@ml.netoyen.net] > Sent: Monday, 7 September 2009 9:59 a.m. > To: Justin Mason > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin > > Justin Mason a écrit : > > In fairness

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

Justin Mason a écrit : > In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more > recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help > out. Comparative third-party tests like this always take a lot of > hand-holding. We don't have the same kind of marketing budget as

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

Justin Mason wrote: > In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more > recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help > out. Comparative third-party tests like this always take a lot of > hand-holding. We don't have the same kind of marketing budget as t

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

Jason Haar wrote: The Register reports that Virus Bulletin has announced it's latest results comparing a range of antispam products. McAfee won - and by the looks of it SpamAssassin and ClamAV came last. doesn't McAfee still use SpamAssassin in the backend?

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

On fre 04 sep 2009 06:00:23 CEST, LuKreme wrote looks of it SpamAssassin and ClamAV came last. SpamAssassin is not an anti-spam program. priceless -- xpoint

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help out. Comparative third-party tests like this always take a lot of hand-holding. We don't have the same kind of marketing budget as the commercial companies, need

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009, LuKreme wrote: > On 3-Sep-2009, at 18:22, Jason Haar wrote: >> The Register reports that Virus Bulletin has announced it's latest > > its Pedantic drivel. >> results comparing a range of antispam products. McAfee won - and by >> the >> looks of it SpamAssassin and ClamAV c

Re: antispam comparison by virus bulletin

On 3-Sep-2009, at 18:22, Jason Haar wrote: The Register reports that Virus Bulletin has announced it's latest its results comparing a range of antispam products. McAfee won - and by the looks of it SpamAssassin and ClamAV came last. SpamAssassin is not an anti-spam program. Hopefully th

antispam comparison by virus bulletin

The Register reports that Virus Bulletin has announced it's latest results comparing a range of antispam products. McAfee won - and by the looks of it SpamAssassin and ClamAV came last. the methodology was flawed of course (oh no, I've become One of Those...). The chose SuSE10 which came with SA

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

Steven Dickenson wrote: You might be able to get your security group to take responsibility for it. Many enterprises now consider first-line email servers something of an application-level proxy, particularly first-line servers that handle spam and malware filtering. In these cases, they're

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

Martyn Drake wrote: Ironically, after many years of faithful Linux use we're going down the Exchange route and mail handling to be given over to another department. I doubt we'll see a SA Linux box there. Oh well. I'm used to disapointments over the years, so it wasn't too much of a surprise

RE: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

Steven Dickenson wrote: > Eric A. Hall wrote: >> >> simple click-the-button GUI, > > apt-get install exim4-daemon-heavy spamassassin clamav-daemon razor Steven, I don't think you give yourself enough credit :) -- Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902 Hispanic Busin

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

Eric A. Hall wrote: Every filtering system requires admin time, and if the reviews don't say as much then they're junk. There is a critical difference with SA, however, which is that the admins need to be proficient at stuff like CPAN, Perl, etc., while some of the packaged offerings provide si

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

Lima Union wrote: Any idea how many 'commercial solutions' depend on SA ? The Barracuda does IIRC and doesn't MessageLabs also use SA (amongst other things)? Regards, Martyn

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

David B Funk wrote: Yes, but don't forget, while Kevin was "on hold" waiting for his SA support message -he- got to pick the music that he listened to rather than being forced to listen to the commercial vender's 'elevator muzak' and ads, makes the price all the easier to take. ;) That probably

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:33:54AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote: The Wiki page http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CommercialProducts lists a whole bunch. Anything listed there uses SpamAssassin, as that's a condition of listing ;) Although not listed I'm pretty sure that Astaro uses SA. -- Neil

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lima Union writes: > On 5/27/05, aecioneto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >2 hours is better than an hour and a half? > > > > > > > >{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while "on > > > >hold" with SpamAssassin. The numb

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

On 5/27/05, aecioneto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >2 hours is better than an hour and a half? > > > > > >{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while "on > > >hold" with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.) > > > > Hi there, Any idea how many 'commerci

RE: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

eliability*. If they, out there, would take SA and open source as a seriuos, mature, stable etc solution they MUST SEE it as a real competitor to many appliance and spam engines available. Sorry folks, because I am quite fustated that such comparison did never take place. Regards. __

RE: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

> >2 hours is better than an hour and a half? > > > >{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while "on > >hold" with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.) > > > Well, of course, let's assume another 30 minutes for the second level support > person to finally

RE: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

Title: RE: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions >2 hours is better than an hour and a half? > >{O,o}   (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while "on >    hold" with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.) Well, of course, let'

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

JamesDR wrote: As far as ease of setup? When I first started with SA I was more of the doze admin than the Linux admin. I've been doing Linux stuff since around 1996/1997 and have my own dedicated server that I get to ruin^H^H^H^play with before rolling it across work-related matters. I'd

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

On Thu, 26 May 2005, jdow wrote: > From: "Kevin Peuhkurinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip..] > > putting me on hold for another 30+ minutes while they try to track down > > a second level support person. > > That's 30 minutes > > > On the other hand, I had a question about SpamAssassin the other

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

From: "Kevin Peuhkurinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If that's not bad enough, I find most support from proprietary software > vendors to be the pits. We have Mcafee's Enterprise Anti-Virus suite > with a support contract. However, I hate calling them because I tend > to have to wait 30+ minutes

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

Martyn Drake wrote: Aecio F. Neto wrote: Is there any *good* and *trustable* comparison between SA and other commercial solutions? I looked into a few dedicated commercial spam appliances, but most (but not all) of which used a customised version of SpamAssassin as part of their detection

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 10:30:21AM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote: [...] > >My intention was to have some external opinion - magazine, > >site review, you name it - saying that when summing up > >cost/benefit of SA comparing to other things out there, it is > >best by far (this is my opinion). >

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

On 5/26/2005 10:30 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: > Understood, and very good effort by you to educate them. Mostly all the > reviews slam the cost benefit of SA with the "Pay an employee to > support it." line of crap. Every filtering system requires admin time, and if the reviews don't say as much

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

I can only speak from the perspective of a small (but growing, thank you) shop. I was committed to using Linux and FOSS from the get, anyway, but as a start-up, commercial solutions to a great many of our needs were out of reach, price-wise. Our email solution was sendmail-spamassassin-rdj-c

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

And when in doubt go to Linux world. Last year everyone was pushing the antispam solution which was just a fancy SA implementation on their hardware, overpriced and pushed back with the exact same support that you are getting here. I think it's because even their support people are in this room (

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

aecioneto wrote: I post such inquiry to the list because some prospects of mine very often tend to compare feature-by-feature (nonse, IMHO) and - thanks to MS culture - have doubts about a solution with no helpdesk phone at the "other side of the box". Forgive this little rant, but support

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

Aecio F. Neto wrote: Is there any *good* and *trustable* comparison between SA and other commercial solutions? I looked into a few dedicated commercial spam appliances, but most (but not all) of which used a customised version of SpamAssassin as part of their detection process anyway

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions - OT

On Thursday May 26 2005 10:30 am, Chris Santerre wrote: > >-Original Message- > >From: aecioneto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:36 PM > >To: users > >Subject: Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions > > > > >

RE: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

>-Original Message- >From: aecioneto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:36 PM >To: users >Subject: Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions > > >Loren and Chris, >thanks for your replies. >I am aware of SA, I have been using

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

Loren and Chris, thanks for your replies. I am aware of SA, I have been using it from a very long time ago - having it well trained and updated - as best as I can. I understand about all issues you both mentioned about a raw SA and other solutions out there. I post such inquiry to the list beca

Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

> Is there any *good* and *trustable* comparison between SA and other > commercial solutions? It depends on what kind of comparison you are interested in. Every few months some magazine or online info service will run a comparison of various spam tools, and the report of their report e

RE: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

>-Original Message- >From: Aecio F. Neto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:22 PM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions > > >Hi, there. >Is there any *good* and *trustable* comp

Comparison of SA and commercial solutions

Hi, there. Is there any *good* and *trustable* comparison between SA and other commercial solutions? Any feedback much appreciated. Regards

Re: spamassassin comparison

Joe I used MimeSweeper 4.2 before migrating to MS/SA combination just over a year ago. Was terrible at catching spam so I moved. I didn't try 4.3 as it was nasty to upgrade to (uninstall 4.2 and re-install 4.3, reconfigure from scratch was the best way). They've since released newer versions a

spamassassin comparison

I'm running Mailscanner with Spamassassin and I was wondering if anyone else has used any different products than spamassassin, commercial or opesource and if so how did spamassassin compare to them. Thanks

Re: 3.0x v 2.6x side by side comparison q?

Matt Kettler wrote: At 06:53 AM 11/9/2004 -0800, Gary W. Smith wrote: Matt, I did find some information in bugzilla regarding this as well but it still seems to be open. Is the short fix to add a single trusted net a per Bowie? If you've got a NATed server, use trusted_networks. In fact, even if

RE: 3.0x v 2.6x side by side comparison q?

Thanks. I'll just setup the trusted networks to simplify it. Gary -Original Message- From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:14 AM To: Gary W. Smith; Bowie Bailey; users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: RE: 3.0x v 2.6x side by side compari

RE: 3.0x v 2.6x side by side comparison q?

At 06:53 AM 11/9/2004 -0800, Gary W. Smith wrote: Matt, I did find some information in bugzilla regarding this as well but it still seems to be open. Is the short fix to add a single trusted net a per Bowie? If you've got a NATed server, use trusted_networks. In fact, even if you don't have a nat

RE: 3.0x v 2.6x side by side comparison q?

0 AM > To: Bowie Bailey; users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: RE: 3.0x v 2.6x side by side comparison q? > > At 09:28 AM 11/9/2004 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote: > >SA 3.0 attempts to "guess" at trusted networks if you don't specify > >any. In situations using

RE: 3.0x v 2.6x side by side comparison q?

At 09:28 AM 11/9/2004 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote: SA 3.0 attempts to "guess" at trusted networks if you don't specify any. In situations using NAT, this doesn't work very well. There have been a few threads on this recently. Add a "trusted_networks" entry or two to cover your mailservers and this

RE: 3.0x v 2.6x side by side comparison q?

From: Gary W. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I have all email hitting the production 2.6x spamd and at the same > time logging it against the 3.x spamd. I diff the output from the > original email for both spamd’s. Anyways, I keep noticing that > ALL_TRUSTED is hit for each and every 3.x ema

3.0x v 2.6x side by side comparison q?

Title: 3.0x v 2.6x side by side comparison q? I have all email hitting the production 2.6x spamd and at the same time logging it against the 3.x spamd.  I diff the output from the original email for both spamd’s.  Anyways, I keep noticing that ALL_TRUSTED is hit for each and every 3.x email

RE: comparison

Use spamstats: http://freshmeat.net/projects/spamstats/ and run against old and new maillogs. --Chris >-Original Message- >From: Ronan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:27 AM >To: spam >Subject: comparison > > >Is there any way to comp

comparison

Is there any way to compare the effectiveness or otherwise or 2.6x vs /3.0.0?? I have just upgraded one of my 3 mailhubs to 3.0.0 and want to compare it to the other 2 in terms of effectiveness... how would i go about this or is there no way? ronan -- Regards Ronan McGlue == Analyst