MailScanner vs. SpamKiller

[Randal, Phil]

No Bayes?  Therein lies your problem, or part of it.  Without Bayes you'll
need lots of additional rules to trap stuff.

spamhaus has two RBLs these days, use both or the combined one.

Add in the backhair, bigevil, evilnumbers, popcorn, etc.

Check the CustomRules entry in Spamassassin's Wiki.

Cheers,

Phil


---------------------------------------------
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK

-----Original Message-----
From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK]On Behalf
Of Max Kipness
Sent: 01 March 2004 15:55
To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: MailScanner vs. SpamKiller



Hi All,



I've been running MailScanner for a while for a few clients. I just signed
on a new client that was using SpamKiller by Mcafee I believe. The main
reason for the service is for queueing their mail when their Exchange server
goes down which it has been every weekend due to scheduled power outages.
However, they are still relying on the Spam and Virus filtration.



The problem is that they decided to turn off SpamKiller the other day, and
started getting spam that they assumed MailScanner would stop. Bottom line
is that when SpamKiller is enabled, they get close to no spam at all. Some
of the samples that they sent me are the very basic couple of lines type of
spam that gets a very low score. Here is what I have running:



SpamAssassin 2.63

ORDB-RBL

spamhaus.org

spamcop.net

dsbl.org

abuseat.org

blitzed.org

Razor2



I'm not doing Bayes at the moment as it seems to be a real hassle doing the
training.



So my question is what can I do to improve the whole system? What tweaks?
Will DCC help out a lot? Are there any better RBLs? Tweaks to SpamAssassin?



Thanks,

Max

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20040301/44dbc42d/attachment.html