See response below; Jake Vickers wrote:
Eric Shubert wrote:
I've read alot about both, I am mainly looking
at it, cause I've been running spamassassin for a while and it's good,
but I wanted to try something different and dspam sounds really neat.
Very late into this conversation, but if
Kent Busbee wrote:
See response below; Jake Vickers wrote:
Eric Shubert wrote:
I've read alot about both, I am mainly looking
at it, cause I've been running spamassassin for a while and it's good,
but I wanted to try something different and dspam sounds really neat.
Very late into this
Hi,
I currently have a mailsystem that's been running for at least 10 years. It's
a variation of a qmail toaster I found a long time ago on the web. It's been
updated maybe only once since I've had it (but I've kept various components
updated throughout the years like spamassassin and
Wayne Catterton wrote:
Hi,
I currently have a mailsystem that's been running for at least 10
years. It's a variation of a qmail toaster I found a long time ago on
the web. It's been updated maybe only once since I've had it (but
I've kept various components updated throughout the years
- Original Message -
From: Eric Shubert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] ***SPAM*** Qmail Toaster thanks and questions
Wayne Catterton wrote:
Hi,
I currently have a mailsystem that's
Wayne Catterton wrote:
just wondering, I know dspam and spamassassin are different, and
spamassassin has been around for a while, is it mainly preference when
it comes to what to use?
Seems to be.
I've read alot about both, I am mainly looking
at it, cause I've been running spamassassin for
Eric Shubert wrote:
I've read alot about both, I am mainly looking
at it, cause I've been running spamassassin for a while and it's good,
but I wanted to try something different and dspam sounds really neat.
DSPAM would be a good one to try. I think that it's bayes processing is
better
