Tony, I've been holding off on DCC until I thought it was a robust enough system to use. I'm still somewhat haunted by Razor's hiccuppiness in days gone by. In your experience is DCC nicely stable/functional now? I was very intrigued by the project when I first heard about it around 6 months or so ago now.
In your impression of using it, is it ready to have the mailboxes of several million (potentially) SpamAssassin mailboxes hitting its servers? How easy is it to call out to DCC, both for verification and for submission of new signatures? I'm guessing when it's time to implement this in SA I'll have to sign up on the mailing list and get into some discussion with the folks working on it, but before I do that, what are your thoughts? C On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 14:31, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 the voices made Keith Pitcher write: > > > Anyone else ever bother to implement this or try it out? It looks a lot like > > razor, but another check couldn't hurt as a ruleset for SA. Anything to help > > detect spam has to be good. > > Yeah, I used it before SA (still using it); every now and then DCC catches > something that SA doesn't, and if SA reported to DCC it would become even > better. :-) > > > /Tony > -- > Per scientiam ad libertatem. ©1999-2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Random URL (4/10): > <URL: http://www.slashdot.org/ > Who's getting ./:ed today? > -- Random epigram: (10467/11671) > We're mortal -- which is to say, we're ignorant, stupid, and sinful -- > but those are only handicaps. Our pride is that nevertheless, now and > then, we do our best. A few times we succeed. What more dare we ask for? > -- Ensign Flandry > > > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk > > _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
