Martyn Drake wrote:
As far as ease of setup? When I first started with SA I was more of the doze admin than the Linux admin. I read the directions, and could figure out stuff for myself. If their box/software goes titsup (like anything tends to do) are they going to be there that second to fix it? I'd guess no. So you would be either left wide open, or block business. And yes, you could do a really expensive clustering etc with their equipment/sw but what does this bring you? The black box. You plug it in, hope it works, and if it doesn't you are at the mercy of 'them' (men in the black suits ;-D ) So from ease of install (started at 2.5) from the get go, if you read the directions, and some of the how-tos out there. SA is the way to go. Like a poster said earlier, 2hrs if cpan is slow and you are on your feet running. If they pay you per hour of $21, this anti-spam solution, at the get-go, cost them hw + $42. Not too shabby for something as complex, yet, effective as spamassassin (complex in that it does a lot in trying to catch spam.) I only spend about 1/2 hr a day checking logs, and the spam folder (all spam is dropped there) for FP's, nary a FP per half year ends up there. Stay with SA. Get good hw for what they want to spend the money on -- Or a company car ;-DAecio F. Neto wrote:Is there any *good* and *trustable* comparison between SA and other commercial solutions?I looked into a few dedicated commercial spam appliances, but most (but not all) of which used a customised version of SpamAssassin as part of their detection process anyway. MessageLabs was outrageously expensive, and we didn't particularly want to have mail going through third-party servers.In the end it was far better to do it myself with SpamAssassin, RDJ, limited RBL and a few other tweaks, and that's how it's been so far.Regards, Martyn
-- Thanks, JamesDR
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
