Steven Dickenson wrote:
You might be able to get your security group to take responsibility for
it. Many enterprises now consider first-line email servers something of
an application-level proxy, particularly first-line servers that handle
spam and malware filtering. In these cases, they're
Martyn Drake wrote:
Ironically, after many years of faithful Linux use we're going down the
Exchange route and mail handling to be given over to another department.
I doubt we'll see a SA Linux box there. Oh well. I'm used to
disapointments over the years, so it wasn't too much of a surprise
Steven Dickenson wrote:
> Eric A. Hall wrote:
>>
>> simple click-the-button GUI,
>
> apt-get install exim4-daemon-heavy spamassassin clamav-daemon razor
Steven, I don't think you give yourself enough credit :)
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Busin
Eric A. Hall wrote:
Every filtering system requires admin time, and if the reviews don't say
as much then they're junk.
There is a critical difference with SA, however, which is that the admins
need to be proficient at stuff like CPAN, Perl, etc., while some of the
packaged offerings provide si
Lima Union wrote:
Any idea how many 'commercial solutions' depend on SA ?
The Barracuda does IIRC and doesn't MessageLabs also use SA (amongst
other things)?
Regards,
Martyn
David B Funk wrote:
Yes, but don't forget, while Kevin was "on hold" waiting for his
SA support message -he- got to pick the music that he listened to
rather than being forced to listen to the commercial vender's 'elevator
muzak' and ads, makes the price all the easier to take. ;)
That probably
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:33:54AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
The Wiki page http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CommercialProducts
lists a whole bunch. Anything listed there uses SpamAssassin,
as that's a condition of listing ;)
Although not listed I'm pretty sure that Astaro uses SA.
--
Neil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lima Union writes:
> On 5/27/05, aecioneto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >2 hours is better than an hour and a half?
> > > >
> > > >{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while "on
> > > >hold" with SpamAssassin. The numb
On 5/27/05, aecioneto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >2 hours is better than an hour and a half?
> > >
> > >{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while "on
> > >hold" with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.)
> >
> >
Hi there,
Any idea how many 'commerci
> >2 hours is better than an hour and a half?
> >
> >{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while "on
> >hold" with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.)
>
>
> Well, of course, let's assume another 30 minutes for the second level support
> person to finally
> >2 hours is better than an hour and a half?
> >
> >{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while "on
> >hold" with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.)
>
>
> Well, of course, let's assume another 30 minutes for the second level support
> person to finally
Title: RE: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions
>2 hours is better than an hour and a half?
>
>{O,o} (Yes, I know that you were free to do other stuff while "on
> hold" with SpamAssassin. The numbers just sort of tickled me.)
Well, of course, let'
JamesDR wrote:
As far as ease of setup? When I first started with SA I was more of the
doze admin than the Linux admin.
I've been doing Linux stuff since around 1996/1997 and have my own
dedicated server that I get to ruin^H^H^H^play with before rolling it
across work-related matters. I'd
On Thu, 26 May 2005, jdow wrote:
> From: "Kevin Peuhkurinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip..]
> > putting me on hold for another 30+ minutes while they try to track down
> > a second level support person.
>
> That's 30 minutes
>
> > On the other hand, I had a question about SpamAssassin the other
From: "Kevin Peuhkurinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If that's not bad enough, I find most support from proprietary software
> vendors to be the pits. We have Mcafee's Enterprise Anti-Virus suite
> with a support contract. However, I hate calling them because I tend
> to have to wait 30+ minutes
Martyn Drake wrote:
Aecio F. Neto wrote:
Is there any *good* and *trustable* comparison between SA and other
commercial solutions?
I looked into a few dedicated commercial spam appliances, but most (but
not all) of which used a customised version of SpamAssassin as part of
their detection
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 10:30:21AM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
[...]
> >My intention was to have some external opinion - magazine,
> >site review, you name it - saying that when summing up
> >cost/benefit of SA comparing to other things out there, it is
> >best by far (this is my opinion).
>
On 5/26/2005 10:30 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> Understood, and very good effort by you to educate them. Mostly all the
> reviews slam the cost benefit of SA with the "Pay an employee to
> support it." line of crap.
Every filtering system requires admin time, and if the reviews don't say
as much
I can only speak from the perspective of a small (but growing, thank you)
shop. I was committed to using Linux and FOSS from the get, anyway, but as
a start-up, commercial solutions to a great many of our needs were out of
reach, price-wise. Our email solution was
sendmail-spamassassin-rdj-c
And when in doubt go to Linux world. Last year everyone was pushing the
antispam solution which was just a fancy SA implementation on their
hardware, overpriced and pushed back with the exact same support that you
are getting here. I think it's because even their support people are in
this room (
aecioneto wrote:
I post such inquiry to the list because some prospects of mine very often tend to compare
feature-by-feature (nonse, IMHO) and - thanks to MS culture - have doubts about a
solution with no helpdesk phone at the "other side of the box".
Forgive this little rant, but support
Aecio F. Neto wrote:
Is there any *good* and *trustable* comparison between SA and other
commercial solutions?
I looked into a few dedicated commercial spam appliances, but most
(but not all) of which used a customised version of SpamAssassin as
part of their detection process anyway. Messa
On Thursday May 26 2005 10:30 am, Chris Santerre wrote:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: aecioneto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:36 PM
> >To: users
> >Subject: Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions
> >
> >
>
>-Original Message-
>From: aecioneto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:36 PM
>To: users
>Subject: Re: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions
>
>
>Loren and Chris,
>thanks for your replies.
>I am aware of SA, I have been using
Loren and Chris,
thanks for your replies.
I am aware of SA, I have been using it from a very long time ago - having it
well trained and updated - as best as I can.
I understand about all issues you both mentioned about a raw SA and other
solutions out there.
I post such inquiry to the list beca
> Is there any *good* and *trustable* comparison between SA and other
> commercial solutions?
It depends on what kind of comparison you are interested in. Every few
months some magazine or online info service will run a comparison of various
spam tools, and the report of their report ends up gene
>-Original Message-
>From: Aecio F. Neto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:22 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions
>
>
>Hi, there.
>Is there any *good* and *trustable* comp
Hi, there.
Is there any *good* and *trustable* comparison between SA and other
commercial solutions?
Any feedback much appreciated.
Regards
28 matches
Mail list logo
