Well, I decided to reply this to everyone as well. I'm sure Logan has been taking a beating on this, so I'll be gentle :)
I run a patched version of SA 2.43 and I catch 99% of the spam for our company! (The patch was a simple security issue.) This is WITHOUT Bayes OR Net tests!! Yes, you read correct, straight local rules, and I catch 99% of spam with very little false positives. I am forced to deal with China, Korea, ect... as many of our customers are from there. I've been running this for over a year this way! Antispam software can only be canned to a certain point. It isn't like Anti-virus, and must be tweaked and update to a certain degree of personalization. Efforts have been put in place to make updating rules easier. I wonder what your tests would have shown had you added some rule sets from the Spamassassin Rules Emporium (SARE). I'm sure you would have a much better outlook! I just wanted to bring to your attention that an even OLDER version of SA is running dang near perfect! Spam is ever changing, and running a default install of a 1 year old release is just silly. But that release updated will work just fine. I've read numerous antispam articles, and NONE have given SA justice. Chris Santerre System Admin and SA Custom Rules Emporium keeper http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 6:31 PM > To: Logan Harbaugh > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] Re[2]: > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/45FEspam_1.html?s=tc > > > 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/ _______________________________________________ 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
