I think a correction should be printed saying that they tested an old version and that even Infoworld uses spamassassin internally on its own servers. See the 7/18/2003 article written by Kevin Railsback, IT guy at Infoworld. Perhaps some insights from Mr. Railsback would highlight why "After evaluating several possibilities, InfoWorld chose SpamAssassin...".
Here is Kevins article: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/07/18/28FEspamassassin_1.h tml Another tidbit from his article: "SpamAssassin is easy to install and customize, with a basic interface for adding domains and e-mail addresses to blacklists and white lists". On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dan Wilder wrote: > 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. > > ------------------------------------------------------- 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
