On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:01:11PM +0000, Bob Crandell wrote: > I like SpamAssassin. It's easy and tweakable. I get no false > positives, now, and only about 10 spam a day. Others here don't like > it. I think they are trying to achieve zero spam and I don't think > that's possible. Anyway, there will be more opions soon.
SpamAssasin is good if you've got a small box and not many users using it. When you have thousands of users and tossing as much mail back and forth as efn or UO has to (I think efn may have the higher mail volume of the two), you start to see it's limitations. First, it's perl, so it's not as fast or as resource efficient as a C program would be. Second, it is perl that wasn't designed in any meaningful manner; it was merely hacked, tweaked, and appended as necessary to block the latest things people are doing. You need a pretty serious machine to keep up with that at significant volume. Anything bigger than efn or UO would probably need a cluster of SpamAssasin boxes to keep up, along with a set of things running to monitor the processes to kill and resurrect them when it cracks under pressure. _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
