Too bad Open Sores licensing cannot allow for a requirement on products
that embed the Open Source in a commercial product pour some support back
into the Open Source project. (I note smart companies like RedHat,
Mandrake, IBM, and perhaps now even McAfee do that anyway. This is a
good thing.)
{^_
The magazines real masters are its advertisers and its potential Advertisers,
who dont want to be compared to a free product, so any attempt at contacting
SA people would have been done in away to avoid a real response.
Also the mag is aimed at the bigger end of the market where the money is,
w
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 02:09:47PM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
> Managment still considers open source software to not be good enough. They
> want to waste money to get a box and a phone number.
>
If that's all it takes, I can put "something" in a box and ship it to
them.
*grin*
Michael
>-Original Message-
>From: Gary W. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 1:34 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Interesting NW article
>
>
>Here is the thread. The word "very" should have been underlin
Here is the thread. The word "very" should have been underlined and
bolded, but the mail ready seemed to change it to clear text. I know
there are more than 15, but I was just mentioning the very active ones
such as Theo and Chris. I know I'm less active (more or less lurching
now a days...
Gar
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 10:08:50AM -0800, Gary W. Smith wrote:
> I just got an email back from Joel. At least he is responsive.
> Apparently he did reach out and touch the community. He apparent asked
> the core development team. Unfortunately it was a narrow vision
> community skipping everyone
Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:16 AM
> To: Gary W. Smith
> Cc: Jerry Bell; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Interesting NW article
>
> Gary W. Smith wrote:
> > The articl
While I don't actually use SA, I recently subscribed to the SA list because I
recognize SA as a leading product and I like to get ideas from this list. Also,
I understand (and agree with) the frustration on the part of those here who
think that SA should have had better inclusion and coverage in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 20. Dezember 2004 16:41 schrieb Jerry Bell:
> There's a big review of anti-spam products at nw fusion here:
> http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2004/122004spampkg.html?ts
> Here's a bit on spamassassin:
> http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2004/1
Gary W. Smith wrote:
The article mentions that they reached out to the SA community to
request submission. Which community did they read out to?
I would have been glad to throw an environment together just for their
testing purposes.
I also wonder how many vendors on that list use SA as a backe
The article mentions that they reached out to the SA community to
request submission. Which community did they read out to?
I would have been glad to throw an environment together just for their
testing purposes.
I also wonder how many vendors on that list use SA as a backend to their
custom s
Interesting article...
Did anyone actually see the 'invite' they talk about??? I didn't see
anything on this list, or others.
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Jerry Bell wrote:
There's a big review of anti-spam products at nw fusion here:
http
SA plus SARE rules, even the only very conservative batch, is closer
to 99% with few if any false positives. And with the Bayes scores on
3.x I figure "why bother to Bayes?" (So I doctored my rule values.)
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Carnegie, Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, fro
On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 13:31 -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
> Completely agree. We don't use Bayes, and we catch 99%. Who did these
> people contact?
>
> SA is not that difficult at all to integrate. I think they confuse the
> abondance of options, as difficult.
>
> --Chris
I personally think
Jerry Bell wrote:
Here's a snippet from the article:
"The short answer is that no one submitted it, but of course there's more
to it than that. This year we reached out to the SpamAssassin community
and asked them to participate. Although a few well-meaning souls
volunteered to be the contacts for
>-Original Message-
>From: Carnegie, Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 12:23 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: RE: Interesting NW article
>
>
>Well, from our implementation I would say that this article is
>jun
Kenneth Porter wrote:
Also, SA is a component, not a complete solution. With 41 participants
in the survey, it would be surprising not to find SA integrated into
some of them. Perhaps some here can identify which products?
In the article
(http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2004/122004spamside2.html
://www.c-store.de
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Carnegie, Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: RE: Interesting NW article
Well, from our implementation I would say that this article is junk. We
are running SA
Well, from our implementation I would say that this article is junk. We
are running SA with pretty much default config and no Bayes and are
getting about 97% with the only FPs being some mass mailings from
vendors (MS Technet for example). If we looked at turning on Bayes then
this product would
--On Monday, December 20, 2004 11:29 AM -0500 Jerry Bell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They do talk favorably of spamassassin in a few parts, but overall they
seemed to have missed the boat.
From the article:
The important core of SpamAssassin, a Bayesian engine, was recognizable
in at least one-t
In case anyone else is having problems as well here is the SA-related
portion of the review.
Tim Donahue
Where's SpamAssassin?
By Joel Snyder
Network World, 12/20/04
"The short answer is that no one submitted it, but of course there's
more to it than that. This year we reached out to the Spam
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 11:27:23AM -0500, Jim Maul wrote:
> >Forbidden
> >You don't have permission to access /reviews/2004/122004spamside6.html on
> >this server.
>
> Works for me.
Hrm. Apparently they're just blocking all of my employer's IPs. I can
get to the page from my home machine, but b
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Very much so:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /reviews/2004/122004spamside6.html on this
server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an
ErrorDocument to handle the request.
?? Works here...
--
Regards,
Very strange. The link still works for me and everyone I've asked to try
it. Maybe they're doing some sort of server side blocking?
Here's a snippet from the article:
"The short answer is that no one submitted it, but of course there's more
to it than that. This year we reached out to the SpamAs
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 10:41:33AM -0500, Jerry Bell wrote:
Here's a bit on spamassassin:
http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2004/122004spamside6.html
It's a pretty disappointing article.
Very much so:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /reviews/2004/122004spamside6.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 10:41:33AM -0500, Jerry Bell wrote:
> Here's a bit on spamassassin:
> http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2004/122004spamside6.html
> It's a pretty disappointing article.
Very much so:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /reviews/2004/122004spamside6.html on this
se
26 matches
Mail list logo
