On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 03:18:46PM -0800, Greg Webster wrote:
| On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, j2 wrote:
| > Isnt that pretty much what spamassassin does, and more?
|
| From what I see of SpamAssassin, yes. However, it also involves having
| Perl, a bunch of installed Perl modules, blacklists, Vipul's Razor. And as
You don't need Razor.
Anyways, why don't you go rewrite it and the regex engine and the MIME
parsing and base64 decoding and all in C, and don't use any libraries
at all!, so that nothing else will need to be installed.
| I understand it, also advertises its use in the bounces it delivers
| (http://spamassassin.taint.org/users.html).
SA doesn't bounce anything, and if you use it right it won't deliver
either. It just tags messages (in a configurable way) so that you can
then decide what to do with them.
| This is a much simpler,
Not if you have to re-invent the wheel.
| much less install-crazy and obtrusive method of handling the same
| basic chores.
It is much less install crazy to write everything in machine code (in
binary) yourself at the front panel[1] :-).
There's a reason for writing reusable code (eg perl modules), and
it isn't just to be install-happy.
| I don't want all the features of SpamAssassin,
Ok, now there's a valid reason for not using it.
| I just want some simple filtering like this file and director would
| provide.
You can write a filter to test for various things and react how you
want. However if you're going to write a bunch of regex-based tests
to identify spam, why not use SA's tests and scores? They've been
tested by many people already. You can adjust or remove the tagging
that SA does in the config file.
HTH,
-D
[1]
Think PDP-11
--
All a man's ways seem innocent to him,
but motives are weighed by the Lord.
Proverbs 16:2
