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.
