On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 23:36 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT) <sa...@linuxmagic.com> wrote:
>
> > Slightly old thread, but we should clear any misconceptions.
Indeed, it is. A *year* old.
> > MagicSpam is NOT anything like SpamAssassin. LinuxMagic has been
Thanks for pointing that out. So you still need SA. ;)
> > developing Anti-Spam solutions for the ISP and Telco markets for
> > quite some time, focusing on the SMTP transaction layer. This
> > approach gives a more 'Zero Day' style protection, as it can identify
> > spam sources prior to accepting the email, reducing backscatter and
> > overhead.
>
> None of that really distinguishes it from SpamAssassin, people have
> been using SA that way for many years.
What I like most is the quotes around the "zero day" used by sales. Yes,
indeed, sales! :) Which eloquently points out the fact is has nothing,
really nada, to do with the term "zero day" as used by anyone into
security.
Thanks for highlighting the buzz-words.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
