Quoting Steve Prior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I think you guys are reading the Infoworld article the wrong way and I don't think it is nearly as bad as you think. The author acknowledged that all three products either are or use SpamAssassin as the engine, what he reviewed is the difference in the way it is packaged. From the raw form (SpamAssassin itself) to the turnkey solution.
He pretty much acknowledged that he's not exactly at the Linux From Scratch level of system administration and that he didn't tune the rwa SpamAssassin engine the way a more knowledgeable sysadmin would, but he appeared to take his best crack at it.
That he didn't understand the need to get the SARE rules doesn't sound too surprising, and so the two options with a more complete initial package setup won his testing, also not too surprising. But he pointed out the limitations of the other packages as well.
I think most other authors would have compared a basic SpamAssassin install with some other expensive package, not acknowledged that it wasn't a well installed test and come to the conclusion that open source isn't ready for prime time, this article sponsored by .....
I wouldn't beat up on the author too much.
Im not trying to beat up the author. What annoys me is that others will read
this review and look at the scores and say well hey, spamassassin was the worst
of the 3. This author has now falsely advertised the products. When a well
known site puts out a review on a product, people tend to listen to the
reviewer. I would just hate to see people NOT use spamassassin becaue they
think it is inferior judging by the results of the review.
Reviewers should be more responsible than this and get the facts straight before
publishing incorrect or incomplete information. Either get it right or dont
post your review at all. I think it does more harm than good.
Jim
