Dhawal Doshy dhawal at NETMAGICSOLUTIONS.COM
Mon Nov 1 16:07:04 GMT 2004

    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Jan-Peter Koopmann wrote:
> 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.

Looking at the overwhelming support for SA I hereby withdraw my request
to support multiple spam engines (specially ones containing the word
dspam). Ok, I understand as Jan says that adding dspam or the likes
would make no great difference to spam detection (unless the engine is
truly revolutionary) and at the same time would increase Julian's effort
in maintaining the code (and my hardware requirement). Plus the fact
that the secondary engine would serve no purpose since all obvious spam
would be dropped at the primary engine (leaving the secondary only with
mostly ham).

But this is where I see open-source making a difference, anyone
convinced of dspam's capability is free to start a patch supporting
dspam (or libdspam).

-- End of topic -- (for me atleast)
- dhawal

------------------------ 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).

More information about the MailScanner mailing list