On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:40:56PM +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. > > You see, I _would_ have numbers if DSPAM ran on the d.o lists. I don't feel > like subscribing to all of them personally and testing that myself. But, as
You could subscribe to a few of the biggies and run it like it was on murphy. > unsupported my statement might be, yours is the same - you haven't tested it Statements I made: * "you have hard numbers to back up your claim" -- sarcasm, which you recognised. I was making a very educated (and, as it turns out) entirely accurate statement. No evidence required. * "it would be terrible to make sweeping statements ... with no evidence" -- might require some proof, but I think it stands fairly well on it's own, and as a basis of scientific endeavour. If you'd really like a detailed treatise on why crapping on with no evidence isn't a good thing, please take a first year science course at college and try it. Academics are much better at that sort of rant than me. > either. So, the solution would be to actually give it a try (and yes, I'd > love to take part in configuring it for a test on l.d.o, but I doubt I would > get access to the lists config, so that point is moot) and see how bad/good Have you asked? You'd be *amazed* at what you can do when you ask. > it works for debian. It doesn't even have to run on l.d.o itself, the mail > could be reflected to a relatively idle machine to do the testing. That's going to be the hard part - finding a fairly idle machine in the Debian pool... - Matt
