> Martin Hepworth wrote: > > > Another reason.... > [snip] > > I shall be sticking to 2.64 for the forsee-able future as 3.02 gives me > > no advantage and quite a high likelihood of more spam dropping through > > the system!
Well, some rules do have reduced scores, but there have been rules added that brings the total score back up. For anyone running a stock 2.64, 3.02 will catch more spam. We went from catching 70% of the spam to catching 95% with the upgrade to 3.02. > Not specific to Martins reply, but thanks to all the responses regarding > continued use of > SA2.64. I'd like to be able to offer to take on 2.64 maintenance (with the > help of others), > but I would simply be biting over too much. For the moment anyway. Given that everyone sticking with 2.64 says that it is working fine, it would seem that no maintenance is necessary. > One thing that occurred to me just now - some of the problems we've > discussed, like the > FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, are purely to do with the rulesets/-definitions. Has any > thought been > given to producing separate "packages" for SA code and SA rules? For 2.6 or > 3.0? Along the > lines of what ClamAV does perhaps. > > > /Per Jessen, Zürich > > -- > http://www.spamchek.com/freetrial - sign up for your free 30-day trial now! > http://www.spamchek.de/freetrial - jetzt für 30 Tage ausprobieren - kostenlos > und unverbindlich! > http://www.spamchek.dk/freetrial - 30 dages gratis prøvetid - helt uden > forpligtelser! > Tom schulz Applied Dynamics Intl. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
