pete at eatathome.com.au
Tue Feb 24 12:38:21 GMT 2004
Julian Field wrote:
> At 11:36 24/02/2004, you wrote:
>> Has anyone had look at DSpam?
>> See http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam
>> The author seems to write off SpamAssassin as a filter totally (see
>> http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam/faq.html#1.7 ) and perl
>> implementations in general
>> any thoughts on that?
>> Regards, Tony
> It's very much an aggressive sales pitch. His example of his largest site
> at 125,000 mailboxes is not very big at all. I have sites with over 100
> times that amount. As for his "peaks at 99.984% accuracy", that's just
> an advertisement telling you that you can get "up to 30% off in the
> If he chose his sample right, he should be able to say that it peaks at
> 100% accuracy.
> Sounds like a bunch of Bayes-based or similar approaches. If he is
> on 1 tool like this, he is doomed to failure as the spammers work
> round his
> filters. The more popular he gets, the faster his approach will die.
> SpamAssassin succeeds through its use of so many different approaches
> blended into 1 system. It is easy to fool one or two of them at once, but
> very hard to fool all of them at the same time.
> SpamAssassin Myth 2: you just set up a spam and notspam address just as
> described countless times on this mailing list.
> SpamAssassin Myth 3: only true if you use the "spamassassin" script,
> almost no-one does. MailScanner certainly doesn't suffer this problem.
> Oh, and while we're at it, Perl is not an interpreted language, it's a
> just-in-time compiled language. It just looks like an interpreted
> This just reads like a bolshy sales talk. "I'm wonderful and everyone
> is c**p, and I'm going to keep telling you!". I fully expect there are
> good components in there, and I expect the SpamAssassin guys have
> looked at
> it and made their own judgement on whether there are useful ideas.
> Slagging off all the opposition isn't actually a very good way of
> convincing people of your argument. Some of what he says is true, but
> certainly not all of it. And since I can quickly see several mistakes in
> his information, how much else is made up?
> Julian Field
> MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
> PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
Even though its only 2 zeros i still had to get my calculator out - you
have clients with 12500000 - 12.5 million mailboxes?
Australia only has 18million people, one environment like this could
almost serve our whole country? babies, old folks and all?
I read this mailing list every day, and every day i am amazed!
More information about the MailScanner