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

[Logan Harbaugh]

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

I don't have control over how articles are edited. As it was, there were six software packages in the original test, and they pulled one out because there wasn't as much room as they'd originally thought.

The article as I originally wrote it wasn't intended to be anti-SpamAssassin, but I'd still have to say that even if the performance at catching spam and false positives were comparable to the other packages, installation, management, the user experience and reporting are not comparable to the other packages reviewed.  Unless you're an experienced Linux systems administrator, Spam Asssassin is much more difficult to install and configure than the other packages, and the focus of the article was general anti-spam technologies, rather than Linux-based packages.


Thanks,

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

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Sunday, November 23, 2003 3:31 PM
To:     Logan G. Harbaugh
Cc:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:        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