> Given that the date of the article is November, 2003 and probably > was written months in advance to make the deadlines he should at the > very least have used 2.55 -- which was a darned good product. But, > the insisitence of using a year-old (at least) release seems, to me > at least, to point up a need to make a point "in favour" of the > commercial solutions.
Perhaps the alternative would be to write the editors of InfoWorld about their evaluator. -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes Computer Systems Manager ph: 979-845-7801 Department of Physics fax: 979-845-2590 Texas A&M University ------------------------------------------------------- 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
