On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 04:19:56PM -0800, Logan Harbaugh wrote: > 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.
Perhaps the Editors of InfoWorld would have the room to print a small correction, stating that the comparison of effectiveness, etc, used current versions of all other packages but an ancient version of SpamAssassin? I doubt many here would take exception to the other claims in the article, concerning friendly UI and so on. But the examination of relative effectiveness was clearly biased, and it would seem only appropriate to say so in print. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Technical Manager SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549 Phone: 206-782-8808 Seattle, WA 98155-0549 ICQ UIN 216717075 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- 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
