Spam Detection Around 55%
mkettler at evi-inc.com
Wed Nov 1 19:39:20 GMT 2006
Julian Field wrote:
> But if you read the instructions printed at the end of the install, it
> tells you to uncomment the DCC statement in init.pre. It doesn't do it
> automatically as this would break the licence.
You mean we're supposed to read the 6 miles of text spit out by your installer? :)
That said, what if they don't have DCC at all on their system? Make em load the
Any chance you might consider adding an ifplugin statement to frame the dcc_path
That might cause DCC to break for someone making a new setup using SA 3.0.x and
the latest MailScanner, but who's going to get the latest MailScanner while
using an old version of SA?
>>> Which is of course, what triggered my reply in the first place. The dcc_path
>>> statement was causing parse errors. That's bad. It breaks RDJ.
> And, as the RDJ setup instructions from www.fsl.com/support tell you to
> do, you should run the RDJ once by hand to get the initial rulesets and
> check everything's okay.
Really? where? Inside the installer tarball?
And what about the folks that don't go the the fsl.com website?
I'm not a FSL user. I'm a MailScanner user. I don't go to fsl.com/support. I go
Perhaps you might consider adding a link to fsl.com/support to that page? Right
now it mentions FSL, but only as a commercial support option. It might be worth
pointing to all the free good FAQs fsl has created from the MailScanner website.
> If you didn't follow the earlier instructions,
> this will highlight the dcc_path error for you, allowing you to either
> comment out the dcc_path line or re-read the earlier instruction
> printing by my install script.
> Maybe we should have a wiki page that lists all the things that you and
> I disagree on :-)
> Just I've never had a complaint sent to me by a user who's really had
> problems figuring out my instructions and has been badly bitten by all
> these things.
Ok... I'd agree none have mentioned being badly bitten. However, some HAVE been
bitten. After all, that's how this conversation started. Someone got bit by the
I just put my feet in the shoes of a particular kind of
> user, one that barely knows what they are doing, who runs a little box
> for him/herself and a few customers/friends and who loves to have
> instructions telling them what to do.
I'd agree. It's just my perspective while in these shoes is a bit different.
When I put my feet in those shoes, I think "what can I do to make this work for
the broadest variety of scenarios?" ie: "works no matter what". You appear to
think "What can I do to make this work best for the most common scenario?" ie:
maximal performance and ease for the typical small-box user.
Neither of these views is outright incorrect, it's just a different approach to
what's important when dealing with the "less knowledgeable"
More information about the MailScanner