On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:50:50 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote: > > <http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/09/28TCspam_1.html>
> 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. In that case, they should have compoared both with and without the SARE rules. Depending on what they were actually trying to find out, they may well have done a good test. Wether a solution is complete in and off itself or wether it needs some extra stuff to be really good is a valid. Ease of use for newbies and people with severe time constraints can be just as important as functionality. I really think they should have tested SA 3 as well though. > SA would have kicked the other software's butt! That's kinda strange considering that the other softwares does use SA, and can use the SARE rules and SURBL as well. Actually, the test could have specified what version of SA was installed with the softwares, wether it used SURBL (I know that the author of Canit-Pro recommends using SURBL with SA) and wether any of the SARE and other additional rules were included in the install. /Jonas -- Jonas Eckerman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.fsdb.org/
