>-----Original Message----- >From: Aecio F. Neto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:22 PM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Comparison of SA and commercial solutions > > >Hi, there. >Is there any *good* and *trustable* comparison between SA and other >commercial solutions? >Any feedback much appreciated. > >Regards
Being as fair as I can be..the answer is NO. Definetly NO! Whenever there is a comparison between SA and commercial package, they will use a standard SA install. Nothing tweaked. No SARE rules. No extra URIBL lists added. Most likely 4-8 months old, no bayes DB, ect..... (sometimes even older versions, that spammers have worked completely around.) Then they will compare it to a commercial package that has some sort of auto-update feature that is updated to the day they install it. All sorts of extras added. And usually the engine is SA running in the background! I've emailed people who have done the comparisons, and their responses have been pretty standard. They don't have the time to become experts in SA, and have no time to install past the initial setup. I have yet to see anything indepth either. Mostly the systems are run in parallel with each other and they look at spam caught rates. But never look into speed, resources, ect. They cover capture rates, ease of setup, and they ALWAYS, all of them, every single one, say that there is a lack of a support for SA. Which, IMHO is complete BS. You just don't have a phone number to call. But there is plenty of support. So again, I have seen no single fair comparison between any comercial product and SA. HTH, Chris Santerre System Admin and SARE/URIBL Ninja http://www.rulesemporium.com http://www.uribl.com
