on Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 06:22:47PM -0700, Ray Heasman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 17:57, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 05:46:02PM -0600, Jason R. Mastaler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > Please quantify your personal experience. > > > > > > I'd prefer not to. > > > > Duly noted: > > Oh, get off your horse. His statement is quite reasonable.
As was my question. TMDA makes unsupported and demnostrably false statements about the efficacy of other methods. At the same time it fails to provide efficacy data for itself. Where I come from, this is spelled "intellectual dishonesty". > I have installed mail servers in a company environment. They ask the > following question: > > "Is it at all possible, ever, that a non-spam message could get marked > as spam?" > > I tell them "Yes, but its very very unlikely", and their reply is that > if even one single message gets dropped in the life of the company, > that is too much. The fact that the software might be better than a > human doing the same thing is completely irrelevant. I've had Dilbert bosses too. As I stated in a separate post here (I really am trying _not_ to repeat myself overly), the amount and risk of loss from my SA system is far less than that of other threat models. My background is economics and IT -- I make assessments based on relative risks, and assign resources accordingly. > So yes, in some peoples eye's, no spam filtering system is good enough > unless it is perfect. Those people are the people sysadmins serve. You > can whine at the sysadmins as much as you like. You can talk about > your 0.00whatsit false positive rate or whatever, and you are blowing > so much smoke, because they have to deal with people that simple don't > think that way. As I've configured it to date, I lose _no_ mail. I am occasionally unsure of its whereabouts. In the separate post where I detailed the false positives (both of them) I've experienced with SA, both mails were in fact on my system, and could be found readily once I was made aware of their presence. Actually, I found the first one on my own. > Stop acting like a prat. Being snarky, and putting the word "Peace" > after it gains you nothing. That's something I've done with all my email for slightly over two years, for personal reasons. If you'd care to discuss this further, I'd be happy to, off list. It does, however, serve as a reminder, both to myself and others. Occasionally ironic. Not infrequently pointed at myself. > If you want to convert me to your point of view, you are SO on the > wrong track. Behave. I've kicked around the Net long enough (almost 20 years) to know that reason isn't always persuasive. I'm aiming more at making an impression, and a record. I belive I've succeeded to some extent. I'm also bringing this discussion back to Debian, where it initiated, to help determine what is to be done with inclusion of TMDA as a Debian package. The discussion of TMDA's faults in the Debian BTS and debian-devel list raised a number of issues. One of which is that a number of folks there agree with my point of view (and as I've been an active participant in that community rather longer than with the TMDA crowd, the reception was slightly warmer...if that's saying much). Specifically, the TMDA Debian package maintainer, Adam McKenna, refused point blank to make any changes to the package, inclusive of including warnings to the user or providing configuration templates which would minimize negative aspects of the tool. To his credit, TMDA is apparently packaged in a C-R disabled by default mode for Debian, which improves the situation somewhat. I'm also enjoying the discussion and sparring here -- though I'm markedly disappointed in the behavior and seriousness with which people are responding to issues. Quite disappointed. > If you wish to contend that his statement is false, you have lost. I beg your pardon? > There are people out there that don't care about technical details, > and that call the shots. They disagree with you. They pay the bills. > They won't ever use something like spamassassin. They tell sysadmins > what behaviour is good enough. Period. I know quite a number of the smae who _od_ use SpamAssassin. Who are persuadable by reasoned thought. Or at least by a conciousness of legal liability. I just hope it's they and not you who are holding the bag when the chips fall. As I've made pointedly clear: C-R has problems and nobody participating in this discussion can claim ignorance of them. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? The truth behind the H-1B IT indentured servant scam: http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
