dspam!

[John Rudd]

Jan-Peter Koopmann wrote:
> If Dspam catches less spam: Why bother.

While I don't have an opinion about Dspam itself, I think the logic
behind this statement is rather faulty.  It's not important whether or
not Dspam catches more or less spam than SA.  What's important is
whether or not it catches _different_ spam than SA.

The "more or less" argument only applies if someone is asserting that
we should use Dspam instead of SA.  That's not necessarily what is
being asserted here.  What's being requested is the ability to use them
together.  The value of such a situation lies in whether or not Dspam
would catch a group of spam that SA misses, even if the total amount of
spam that Dspam catches is stuff that SA misses (just like the value of
using multiple virus scanners: it's not a matter of whether or not the
2nd scanner catches as much as the first one, it's useful to you as
long as it has the potential to be catching a group of things the first
scanner doesn't catch).

And whether or not the SA folks catch that other group of spam soon is
immaterial.  What spam you can catch with SA in the next release
doesn't help you much while you're using the current release.

I think something like the generic external virus scanner option that
was set up would be a useful thing to have for spam scanners as well.
Have a program group that can be set up to give a "it's not spam",
"it's spam" or "it's high spam" result (perhaps with a report string
that gets put in the 2nd part of the spamcheck report) after
mailscanner sends that program the message.  It's probably not
efficient, but it gives people options.

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