RE: [SAtalk] Re[2]: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/45F Espam_1.html?s=tc

[Chris Santerre]

Title: RE: [SAtalk] Re[2]: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/45FEspam_1.html?s=tc

Last I knew, there were versions of SA that ran on Windows and Mac. :-)

 

You can't please everyone, we understand that.

 

CIO/CTOs look for FAST, CHEAP, and RELIABLE, and never understand they can have only two of those. So you pick a mix. The ROI for SA is handsdown a winner. I'm sure CIO/CTOs would love to save the money, and spend a little extra on someone to upkeep it. CIO/CTOs still believe if it doesn't cost a lot, it must not be good.

 

Once you get 'caughtup' with SA, the maintenance is very low. A few new rules you can now download from one source, drop in and restart the process. OR feed Bayes a few emails. Done.

 

Antispam software has to be maintained. No way around that. Pay someone else more to do it, or pay someone inhouse less to do it. Or give the users the ability to do it themselves.

 

I don't think you had an agenda. I just think it was an unfair article. Why not get last years versions of all the other products and test them against SA 2.44?

 

No hard feelings.

 

--Chris Santerre

-----Original Message-----
From: Logan Harbaugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 12:57 PM
To: 'Bill'; 'Chris Santerre'; 'Robert Menschel'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Re[2]: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/45FEspam_1.html?s=tc

I didn't have any agenda while writing the article. I'm sure I wouldn't have gotten as many objections to my review if I'd used the latest release of SA, and I'm sure filtering performance would have been much closer to the others. However, even if the performance had been perfect, better than the commercial products, I'd still have gotten hate mail, since it's much more difficult to find, install, configure and administer, especially for administrators who aren't Linux-literate (and there are many, whether Windows, Mac or other).

In your last sentence, you say that you go with open source because you like to tinker. That's great, but it's the direct opposite of what most CIO/CTOs are looking for in software they're buying for their organizations - they want something that's easily installed and with low maintenance. That is not SA.

Thanks,

Logan G. Harbaugh
530 222-1164
693 Reddington Drive
Redding, CA 96003
www.lharba.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 9:39 AM
To: 'Chris Santerre'; 'Robert Menschel'; Logan G. Harbaugh
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Re[2]: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/45FEspam_1.html?s=tc

>
> I've read numerous antispam articles, and NONE have given SA justice.
>

I think the main reason for the poor reporting of SA is mainly due to the
fact that every one of the reviews has been done by a company that has an
agenda. That agenda being, collecting advertising funding from commercial
software companies. Nobody is putting money in their pockets for SA so of
course the product that pays them the most will get the best reviews.

I tend not to pay any attention to commercial reviews other than as a way to
see whats out there. Even then I tend to go with open-source solutions
because I like to tinker.