On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Justin Mason wrote: > > He's wrong on this: > > Fourth, and I've saved the best for last: SA is a HOG. I refuse to > > fire up perl for each message, and I refuse to full-body-grep each > > message that comes in. > > But it's a fundamental mismatch in approaches anyway -- accuracy costs > CPU, and our position is to spend that CPU to gain the accuracy. > It's an order of magnitude faster than DNSbls anyway. ;)
Did you read the original article? He claims to be _more_ accurate than SA while still doing header-content-only tests (not DNSbl). Of course, I don't know whether that includes blocking IP ranges with a private list. Personally I use SA because it's "close enough" and I got tired of working out all my own filter rules, but perhaps there's room for SA to focus more on header patterns than it does so far -- possibly combined with skipping the body checks entirely if the header clearly indicates spam. (Of course, one then has to define "clearly indicates".) ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
