In fairness, they got in touch to ask for help in setting up a more recent SA, but none of us (ie the PMC) had the spare cycles to help out. Comparative third-party tests like this always take a lot of hand-holding. We don't have the same kind of marketing budget as the commercial companies, needless to say.
OTOH, I think that McAfee's Email & Web Security Appliance runs on SpamAssassin, or at least it did when I worked there ;) --j. On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 01:22, Jason Haar<jason.h...@trimble.co.nz> wrote: > The Register reports that Virus Bulletin has announced it's latest results > comparing a range of antispam products. McAfee won - and by the looks of it > SpamAssassin and ClamAV came last. > > <deep breath> the methodology was flawed of course (oh no, I've become One > of Those...). The chose SuSE10 which came with SA 3.1.8(!!) and didn't even > think it unfair to compare an old product against current releases of > commercial products - but there you go... Poor old ClamAV was treated > similarly: ClamAV is an antivirus product - they actually tested > Sanesecurity's add-on spam rules. I don't know of anyone using those rules > who doesn't use them *in addition* to SA... Really didn't know much about > what they were doing... > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/03/anti_spam_run_off/ > http://www.virusbtn.com/vbspam/may2009 (free registration required that gets > you access to some icons with ticks and crosses in them :-/) > > Hopefully they will do a better job next time - I'd like to see the results > myself > > -- > Cheers > > Jason Haar > Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd. > Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417 > PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1 > -- --j.
