I hardly ever post like this, but I just had to share that I thought this post was spot-on target w/ regards to certain magazines being anti-opensource and a bad source of objective information. Thanks Bryan. Always remember, buyer beware. Whoops, this mag is fully paid for through advertising, subscription is free.
Mike Schrauder > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Hoover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 8:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] Re: > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/45FEspam_1.html?s=tc > > > Man, that article is indeed rather damning - in affect, > though unlikely > effect. > > The article, flagrantly irresponsible, says more about the > magazine, and > the author, than any commentary about the reality of SA's > effectiveness > as an anti-spam tool. > > The fact that older SA versions don't hold up well against modern spam > is probably because spammers have gotten better as a function of SA's > effectiveness, as opposed to anything SA lacks. And SA developers > continue to respond with effective solutions. > > Given that spammer ingenuity at getting past filters evolves with the > filters' effectiveness, measuring a filtering tool based on > an outdated > version has to be the height of incompentence (or deceit) - especially > when the author doesn't even go so far as to mention the > program version > he used, not the program itself, was outdated. > > The author responds to Robert by hiding behind his editor, though his > article refers to SA as an older solution, first generation, as if SA > were a long time forgotten, crashed, and burned test pilot. He gives > the version number, but does not say what the current version > is - that > 2.44 is an older version. Somehow, I don't think the copy > editor gambit > excuse quite obscures his (or the magazine's) obvious anti-open source > bias - e.g., the article headline: "[Various and sundry commercial > products] overwhelm open source in accuracy, flexibility, and > ease." I > suppose the editor gambit is code for, 'My magazine is influenced by > it's advertisers,' and is therfore not a reliable source for > information > technology reviews - though I don't know, as I don't > generally read his > magazine. > > Shops, professionals will opt for commercial products over open source > for a variety of reasons I suppose. Defaming an open source > product to > grandize a commercial one is not neccessary, and really bad form. > > If not for SpamAssassin, it's highly unlikely spam filtering > technology > would be a fraction of where it is today. > > Bryan > > Robert Menschel wrote: > > > > Hello Logan, > > > > Sunday, November 23, 2003, 2:51:18 PM, you wrote: > > > > LH> The point of using the old version of SpamAssassin was > to show how > > LH> much the technology has changed in the last few years. That was > > LH> stated in my original article but edited out of the > final version. (I > > LH> love copy editors.) > > > > Then it would have been good to have tested BOTH versions of > > SpamAssassin, and to have compared them just as you > compared each of the > > commercial products against the ancient and aged version 2.44. > > > > The result of your article was simply to denegrate one of the best > > anti-spam packages available. > > > > You have experience with copy editors. Could you have submitted an > > article to them that wouldn't have been so anti-SpamAssassin? > > > > Will there be a correction printed in the next edition? > > > > Bob Menschel > > > > LH> Thanks, > > > > LH> Logan G. Harbaugh > > LH> 530 222-1164 > > LH> 693 Reddington Drive > > LH> Redding, CA 96003 > > LH> www.lharba.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:46 PM > > > To: Logan G. Harbaugh > > > Subject: > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/45FEspam_1.html?s=tc > > > > > Dear Mr. Harbaugh, > > > > > In your article, you state, > > >> The five products I tested: ... and SpamAssassin 2.44, > an open source > > >> spam filter included with Red Hat Linux 9. > > > and > > >> In contrast to the commercial products, SpamAssassin > represents an > > >> older, first-generation anti-spam solution, and its age > showed in my > > >> tests. It filtered only 62 percent of spam, ... > > > > > Why would you intentionally test an ancient version > (2.44) of a product, and > > > then blame its age on the product? > > > > > Version 2.5x was available in April or May, and version > 2.60 was released > > > last month. Version 2.5x made great strides against spam, > implementing not > > > only new rules-based filtering capabilities, but also a > Bayes database > > > methodology. 2.6x has continued the improvement. > > > > > Run version 2.60 with network and Bayes checks activated, > and SpamAssassin > > > will easily catch 95% of all spam. Spend just a little > time tweaking the > > > scores and adding a few rules, and you can reach 99%. > > > > > My system consistently runs at 99.8% or higher. (Last > week I processed over > > > 5000 spam messages, of which only 5 slipped past > SpamAssassin's filtering.) > > > > > Your report penalized SpamAssassin, not because of > anything SpamAssassin > > > does or does not do, but because you yourself used an > ancient version of the > > > product supplied by RedHat. You penalized SpamAssassin > because RedHat > > > provides an old version. IMO that is a serious disservice > to your readers. > > > > > Do be more careful in the future. > > > > > Robert Menschel > > > SpamMaster > > > www.contractorswarehouse.com, www.xeper.org > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. > > Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it > > help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help > > YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ > > -- > Nothing in the world has more potential for beauty than > woman. Nothing > has more potential to destroy it, than the world. - (Anonymous) > > http://www.wecs.com/content.htm > > This signature file is generated by Pick-a-Tag ! > Written by Jeroen van Vaarsel > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=pick-a-tag > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. > Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it > help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help > YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
