On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:44:38PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 01:08:02PM +1000, Matthew Palmer scribbled: > > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:14:28AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote: > > > How about not using spamassassin instead? > > > http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam/ - a much faster and > > > accurate > > > tool... > > > > And, naturally, you have hard numbers to back up your claim, for situations > > analogous to the Debian mailing lists. Because it would be terrible to make > > sweeping statements like that with no evidence. > One more thing. It wasn't a statement, rather a thesis which may or may not > be confirmed - but that requires testing. And something whispers in my ear
"A much faster and accurate tool" seems like a claim requiring some evidence behind it to me. It wasn't "it's faster than SA and might be worth a try", or anything like that -- you stated, categorically, that dspam was faster and more accurate. For that, I would expect anyone to be able to back up their claim with some evidence. Otherwise you're just talking out your arse. > that spending some time testing a possibly better solution is better than > spending $$$ on new hardware. So, please refrain from sarcasm for the future > and if you don't have anything substantial to say, don't say anything. There I had something quite substantial to say. I asked for something to back up your claim that dspam was faster and more accurate. You've got nothing, apparently, because you need help to implement a test regime. Now, that's fine -- test away, and if it turns out to be good[1], you'll see me at the front of the queue asking politely for it to be implemented. But you can't come and make a bald assertion, with no evidence, and expect anyone sane to pick up your banner and charge into battle on your behalf. > is already enough of hostility, sarcasm, self-importance and similar nice > things on the debian lists. Thanks. I'd vote "self-importance" for your initial post, if I were restricted to those choices. More accurate would be "uninformed hyperbole". Yep, my response was sarcastic with maybe the tiniest dash of hostility, so it's a good thing this isn't the touchy-feely brigade. Perhaps next time you'll come up with something, anything, to back your claim up with, which will mean there'll be one less dork thinking that proof by assertion is the way to get other volunteers to do the work. [1] My personal list of "good" things is: has to be non-resource-intensive, have lower false negatives and at least as low a false positive rate, and require minimal initial and on-going manual maintenance. I'm sure the listmasters have a couple more requirements -- you should ask them. - Matt
