I have sent the author a nicely written email. I tried to enlighten him to the error of his ways. I bet I don't even get a response :)
--Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Jezierski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:20 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: SpamAssassin reviewed in InfoWorld > > > > > > >Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/20/2004 >02:50:50 PM: > >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Rob [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> >> > >> >> 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 > >Some quotes from the article: > >"I downloaded more than 700 pages of documentation" > >Why on earth would you do that. I'm a Windows person and I managed to >install SA on FreeBSD without reading 700 pages of >documentation. I guess >columnists need to read documentation. > >"default settings provided acceptable performance, blocking 88 >percent of >spam, but with a very high 14.77 percent false-positive rate" > >Add some SARE rules, SURBL, Bayes and my system stops 99.5% >with a 0.08% FP >rate. > >"With a few months of use and tuning, however, I expect its performance >would improve substantially. Adding available plug-ins, such as the >Bayesian filter or the content-checking filter, would likely help too." > >DUH... > > >Andy > >
