Those /. readers among you ill have seen this already: "Critical Eye on SpamAssassin" http://slashdot.org/articles/03/11/25/1314226.shtml
primary link is to http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/45FEspam_1.html (although this article is excessively critical and refers to v2.44 -- read the comments on the first link for a variety of insights and ideas) regards, Ben On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:05:43 -0800 "T. Joseph Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | 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 -- _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
