Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I rather like the aggressiveness of #2 and #3. If I want to obliterate > spam, I want to do it decisively, not with a wimpy product.
Aggressiveness implies false positives. Selectiveness is the image we want. #1 and #2 do that (even the original version of #2 where three emails are all pierced seems selective). #3 is just aggressive and is violent on top of that. The more confrontatial we *seem*, the more likely anyone (correctly or incorrectly) filtered by SpamAssassin will react negatively (like they do with blacklists, SpamCop systems, etc.) and I don't want that. #1 is perhaps the best logo in most of the "image we want to convey" respects (I'm a bit torn between #1 and #2 on this one), but I personally *like* #2 better. Also, bear in mind, the logo's not aimed at you! You already use SpamAssassin and probably have a favorable opinion. It's aimed at new users, sites, senders, receivers, etc. Of course, I want a logo we like too, but we should think a bit more broadly. I know it's a challenge for us technical types. :-) Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
