dspam!

[Jan-Peter Koopmann]

> <QUOTE>> Did you actually read what Julian said?
> My thoughts exactly. Probably not.</QUOTE>
> 
> Perhaps you should take your own advise and see that I never
> wrote the second post.  Maybe _READING_ would help before
> replying with no useful information and addressing it to the wrong
> person. 

Another touchy morning? Let's see:

You stated that dspam looks better than spamassassin...

I asked why you think so. Up to this time: No reply. I moreover told you
that this topic has been covered a few times and asked you to have a
look at the archives. What is your definition of "useful information"?
Do you expect me to go through the archives again for you to extract
that information? Probably not. So why exactly are you getting all that
excited?

>> 
>> My thoughts exactly. Probably not.

Whoever posted the link did not read and/or understand it. That's what
Michele and I am referring to. I was not insulting you in any way.

>> David, please read the posting again. It states that Dspam is the one
>> relying on one (or few) solutions for fighting spam whereas
>> SpamAssassin is using several different approaches.
>> SpamAssassin is the way to go...

And this is still true. Read the posting Dhawal provided (even though
interpreting it the wrong way). In my interpretation that posting tells
you why SpamAssassin is a far superior tool for the job. Until someone
tells me why this is not true I personally do not see the point in
having Julian support dspam as well. It will just consume more of his
resources without any benefit.

Regards,
  JP

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).