Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2004
02:50:50 PM:
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:47 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: SpamAssassin reviewed in InfoWorld
> >
> >
> >Haven't seen this posted so here it is...
> >
> >I just received the July 12th issue of InfoWorld magazine and they
> >compare SpamAssassin 2.63 with two other products based on it.
> > Article
> >can be read here
> ><http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/09/28TCspam_1.html>
> >
>
> The accuracy rating is complete BS!
>
> They compare a standard 2.63 install to 2 products that get constant
> updates. For it to be fair they should have included SARE rules and
SURBL.
> SA would have kicked the other software's butt!
>
> --Chris
Some quotes from the article:
"I downloaded more than 700 pages of documentation"
Why on earth would you do that. I'm a Windows person and I managed to
install SA on FreeBSD without reading 700 pages of documentation. I guess
columnists need to read documentation.
"default settings provided acceptable performance, blocking 88 percent of
spam, but with a very high 14.77 percent false-positive rate"
Add some SARE rules, SURBL, Bayes and my system stops 99.5% with a 0.08% FP
rate.
"With a few months of use and tuning, however, I expect its performance
would improve substantially. Adding available plug-ins, such as the
Bayesian filter or the content-checking filter, would likely help too."
DUH...
Andy
