Steve skrev, on 26-11-2007 19:48:
[...]
Sorry but I don't get your point. I was under the impression that the OP wanted to have a
unique and consistent way to flag a message as spam with DSPAM. The purpose of the OP is
to have a way to test that DSPAM works correctly (like SpamAssassin offers with GTUBE
(the Generic Test for Unsolicited Bulk Email) string
"XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UBE-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X").
I am under the impression that the OP does not want to substitute an AV with
DSPAM. Correct me if I am wrong.
To my (tiny) mind (you're a great deal more gifted than me), OP is
trying to equate AV salients to dspam.
To my (tiny) mind, anything with AV has *nothing* to do with dspam.
SpamAssassin might pretend to, dunno, since I gave it up long ago in
utter disgust in favor of dspam for many reasons, but where OP's
reasoning shoots far too short, is that there is anything in common with
the criteria for dspam judging spam and *any* AV software judging virus.
Hmmm ...
OP, my (not so) humble advice:
DO NOT TRY TO EQUATE ANYTHING (*NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING*) TO DO WITH
AV TO DSPAM. Do not even try.
They have *nothing* to do with each other. There is (to my tiny mind)
*NO* point in trying to equate one to the other.
I'm an LDAP person, others are SQL people. DO NOT TRY TO EQUATE ANYTHING
(*NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING*) TO DO WITH LDAP TO SQL. Do not even try.
This is a parallel.
Etc.
Sorry, but this is flogging a dead horse (as we in the knacker's trade
express it).
Sure it is "flogging a dead horse" if the plan of the OP is to
substitute/replace an AV with DSPAM. That would be insane.
Even comparing AV to anti-spam , or attempting to find common threads
(at least as dspam is concerned) witnesses great confusion. SpamAssassin
people might consider otherwise.
--Tonni
--
Tony Earnshaw
Email: tonni at hetnet dot nl
