Perhaps though, this is a valid comparison for the type people that will implement based on reading a technology magazine. Your average Windows sysadmin expects updates to be automatic and hidden from them. On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 14:50, Chris Santerre wrote:
>-----Original Message----- >From: Rob [ <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:47 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: SpamAssassin reviewed in InfoWorld > > >Haven't seen this posted so here it is... > >I just received the July 12th issue of InfoWorld magazine and they >compare SpamAssassin 2.63 with two other products based on it. > Article >can be read here >< <http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/09/28TCspam_1.html> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/09/28TCspam_1.html> > The accuracy rating is complete BS! They compare a standard 2.63 install to 2 products that get constant updates. For it to be fair they should have included SARE rules and SURBL. SA would have kicked the other software's butt! --Chris -- Benjamin Story, CCNA CCDA Dot Foods, Inc www.dotfoods.com (217)773-4411 Helpdesk: x2312
