I think you guys are reading the Infoworld article the wrong way and I don't think it is nearly as bad as you think. The author acknowledged that all three products either are or use SpamAssassin as the engine, what he reviewed is the difference in the way it is packaged. From the raw form (SpamAssassin itself) to the turnkey solution.
He pretty much acknowledged that he's not exactly at the Linux From Scratch level of system administration and that he didn't tune the
rwa SpamAssassin engine the way a more knowledgeable sysadmin would,
but he appeared to take his best crack at it.
That he didn't understand the need to get the SARE rules doesn't sound too surprising, and so the two options with a more complete initial package setup won his testing, also not too surprising. But he pointed out the limitations of the other packages as well.
I think most other authors would have compared a basic SpamAssassin install with some other expensive package, not acknowledged that it
wasn't a well installed test and come to the conclusion that open source
isn't ready for prime time, this article sponsored by .....
I wouldn't beat up on the author too much.
Steve
Jim Maul wrote:
Quoting Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have sent the author a nicely written email. I tried to enlighten him to
the error of his ways. I bet I don't even get a response :)
--Chris
I thought about this as well, but decided against it. Maybe we all should write
up a quick email...dunno
Either way, i find it interesting that the review is of 3 pieces of software:
1. SpamAssassin 2. Product that uses SpamAssassin 3. Product that uses SpamAssassin
Does anyone else find this weird at all?
...
