> All so much hokum.

Not  hokum  to  a  commercial developer. Let's see: you've already (1)
greatly  enhanced  interoperability  with  third-party applications in
your  new  version  and  (2)  greatly  enhanced the performance of the
underlying   platform,   thus  making  the  combination  of  your  new
version+third-party  software much more appealing. So do you then (3a)
develop and test another new system service, make sure to parameterize
everything  under  the  sun, and slow processing; or (3b) get the d**n
thing  out the door before your competitors eat away your market share
with their integrated anti-spam?

On  a  specific  technical  level,  if you're suggesting that separate
services  be used for content scanning and delivery, right away you're
talking  about  doubling the disk I/O load even without Declude, since
the  file  would  then  have  to  be read and written by two different
processes,  as  well  as  IPC  overhead. That's not something any sane
developer would embark on under deadline: "Hey, boss, give us a couple
of  weeks  to  make  it slower." Yep, there are elegant solutions that
could  work  around  the  extra  resource  usage  when  Declude wasn't
installed,  but at the expense of more development time basically sunk
into  somebody  else's  product,  with only break-even performance for
yourself.

> a hard-coded split in the spam processing

There's  no  hard-coded  split  if  you  use IMail alone, which is the
by-design  deployment  method  for  IMail anti-spam. IMail's anti-spam
implementation depends on IMail's rules engine for postprocessing, and
as  such  has  no  reason  to  be more open to third parties. What you
suggest  would  be  nice,  sure,  but  Ipswitch is under no ethical or
licensing  obligation  to let third parties use their anti-spam logic,
especially not if it costs them development and QA time.

In  either  case,  with  all  the complaints people have had about the
insufficiency  of  the  IMail  anti-spam  implementation  (no envelope
rejection,  etc.),  don't you think it would make a bit more sense for
them  to  start  by  making  *their own* part of the equation optimal,
instead  of  spending time "opening" their insufficient existing code?
First  things  first: the major problem with IMail anti-spam isn't the
process  flow for content scanning, it's the process flow for envelope
scanning.  After  *that's* fixed, worry about where the SendName comes
into the overall process flow. :)

-Sandy


------------------------------------
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail".  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

Reply via email to