dspam!

[Jan-Peter Koopmann]

On Monday, November 01, 2004 1:14 PM MailScanner mailing list wrote:

> Yup I have, Julian's observations were pretty valid in Feb
> this year, however it's november and dspam has matured over
> the months.. 

I see. Now... It was not quite that obvious from your first posting...
:-)

> If we can have multiple rbls and multiple anti-virus engines,
> why not multiple anti-spam engines.. for that matter why just

Multiple anti-virus engines definately make sense since a new virus is
sometimes detected by scanner A much faster than by scanner B. Therefore
this means a lot more security. First of all we could start a big
argument whether or not the same is true for SpamAssassin and Dspam (or
any other scanner) that is: Is there spam out there that Dspam will
frequently catch a lot faster than SpamAssassin? But more importantly:
Even if that is the case, is it really worth the effort? With effort I
mean Julian programming and maintaining the support and your hardware
having to go through a lot more trouble. 

If Dspam catches less spam: Why bother.

If Dspam catches more spam: I would agree. I am not convinced this is
the case though.

If Dspam in combination with SpamAssassin catches let's say 1% more spam
than SA alone: Personally I would not want to spend resources on this
especially since I can be pretty sure that the SA folks (or the guys at
SURBL or rulesemporium) will "fix" this pretty soon.

Kind 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).