On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 01:08:02PM +1000, Matthew Palmer scribbled: > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:14:28AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote: > > How about not using spamassassin instead? > > http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam/ - a much faster and accurate > > tool... > > And, naturally, you have hard numbers to back up your claim, for situations > analogous to the Debian mailing lists. Because it would be terrible to make > sweeping statements like that with no evidence. You see, I _would_ have numbers if DSPAM ran on the d.o lists. I don't feel like subscribing to all of them personally and testing that myself. But, as unsupported my statement might be, yours is the same - you haven't tested it either. So, the solution would be to actually give it a try (and yes, I'd love to take part in configuring it for a test on l.d.o, but I doubt I would get access to the lists config, so that point is moot) and see how bad/good it works for debian. It doesn't even have to run on l.d.o itself, the mail could be reflected to a relatively idle machine to do the testing. regards, marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature