Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Kevin Railsback is Test Center operations manager at InfoWorld. "
>
> Maybe he doesn't work there anymore! Did you email that to the author?
OMG! I know him! He used to be one of the help desk guys here at Texas
A&M back when he was an undergrad!.
(
Martin Radford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Fri Nov 21 23:34:35 2003, Jeremy Dold wrote:
>>
>> Does someone want to respond to this guy and point out the obvious?
>> http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/45FEspam_1.html?s=tc
>
> It's a bit embarrassing for the journalist that he was happy to
> 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
*snip*
> > for free on our own in our spare time?
>
> I agree with you Fred that there's plenty to criticize about that
> article, but your last paragraph is not one of them. For the vast
> majority of people it is well worth $10-20 per month for spam and
> virus protection. Most people would muc
Nancy McGough wrote:
On 24 Nov 2003 Fred ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[...]
SpamAssassin 2.4 is really out-dated, it's missing Bayes and thousands of
other fixes that make it a better product.
I had a good laugh on your article, you say "Spend the 10 or 20 per month
per year for one of the commerci
On 24 Nov 2003 Fred ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> SpamAssassin 2.4 is really out-dated, it's missing Bayes and thousands of
> other fixes that make it a better product.
>
> I had a good laugh on your article, you say "Spend the 10 or 20 per month
> per year for one of the commercial serv
