You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by "J.D. Falk" <jd...@cybernothing.org> on 2010/01/28 17:33:37 UTC
blog article on 3.3.0
http://www.returnpath.net/blog/2010/01/spamassasin-rarely-misses.php
Yeah, it's partly self-serving, but that's what corporate blogs are for. The people who read this blog are mostly marketers with very little exposure to the open source community, so this should help them understand a bit more of how the real email ecosystem operates.
--
J.D. Falk <jd...@returnpath.net>
Return Path Inc
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by Alex <my...@gmail.com>.
> I thought I was the only one who ever did that... When I get to a page I
> can't read, I reach for ctrl-a. Highlights the whole page, wa la, readable.
That makes three of us, then :-)
> I don't know. I just have the standard MS fonts. Now that I look more
> closely, the font is gray rather than black, but it is easily readable
> for me at all angles on my monitor.
I guess I have the standard MS fonts on this computer, too. I have a
flat-panel (actually, two), and perhaps the brightness is set a bit
high as well.
It's certainly not the first web page we've all seen that is dim (the
fonts, not the content), but it was worth mentioning for this one.
Best,
Alex
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by DAve <da...@pixelhammer.com>.
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Alex wrote:
>> The font is very small (CTRL-+ helped here), but it's so light I
>> couldn't read it.
>
> Stupid pet trick: Highlight the text with your mouse, and you will get
> ugly, but readable white-on-blue..... :)
I thought I was the only one who ever did that... When I get to a page I
can't read, I reach for ctrl-a. Highlights the whole page, wa la, readable.
DAve
--
"Posterity, you will know how much it cost the present generation to
preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you
do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to
preserve it." John Adams
http://appleseedinfo.org
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>.
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Alex wrote:
> The font is very small (CTRL-+ helped here), but it's so light I
> couldn't read it.
Stupid pet trick: Highlight the text with your mouse, and you will get
ugly, but readable white-on-blue..... :)
- C
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com>.
LuKreme wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> > Yes, good article. A little difficult to read, though. Is there
> > something you're doing with the fonts to make them so light?
In Firefox for hard to read pages I always select the menu [View],
[Page Style], [No Style]. That turns off CSS and renders the page in
basic old school html using my browser default fonts and not theirs.
I use this often.
> <http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>
That is really cool magic. Thanks for sharing it.
Bob
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by David Morton <mo...@dgrmm.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LuKreme wrote:
> On 28-Jan-2010, at 10:45, Alex wrote:
>> Yes, good article. A little difficult to read, though. Is there
>> something you're doing with the fonts to make them so light?
>
> <http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>
OT, but awesome. :)
- --
David Morton <mo...@dgrmm.net>
Morton Software & Design http://www.dgrmm.net - Ruby on Rails
PHP Applications
Maia Mailguard http://www.maiamailguard.com - Spam management
for mail servers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFLYdnEUy30ODPkzl0RAkqRAJ9XKn3sikGK4gv1IZYpoxD15pPOYwCgx6oJ
KIMS00euQl5FsHEmAearRYY=
=sSWu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 28-Jan-2010, at 10:45, Alex wrote:
>
> Yes, good article. A little difficult to read, though. Is there
> something you're doing with the fonts to make them so light?
<http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>
Makes the whole Internet a much nicer place to live.
There's also this little snippet of javascript that I use:
javascript:(document.body.innerHTML+='<style>pre{width:50em;white-space:pre-wrap;word-wrap:break-word;}</style>');
which works with a lot of pages, though it really strips them down. Still, makes them readable, which is the key. I use that on DaringFireball, for instance, as I don't like reading grey on grey text.
--
Don't ride in anything with a Capissen-38 engine, they
fall right out of the sky
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 28-Jan-2010, at 10:53, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> I didn't have a problem. The font is normal-size black on white for me
> in both IE and Firefox (WinXP and Linux).
The text color is #333, which is a darkish grey.
--
I WILL NOT TEASE FATTY
Bart chalkboard Ep. 5F05
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>.
Noel Butler wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 12:53 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> Alex wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >
>> >> http://www.returnpath.net/blog/2010/01/spamassasin-rarely-misses.php
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it's partly self-serving, but that's what corporate blogs are for. The people who read this
>> >> blog are mostly marketers with very little exposure to the open source community, so this
>> >> should help them understand a bit more of how the real email ecosystem operates.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, good article. A little difficult to read, though. Is there
>> > something you're doing with the fonts to make them so light?
>> >
>> > The font is very small (CTRL-+ helped here), but it's so light I
>> > couldn't read it.
>> >
>>
>> I didn't have a problem. The font is normal-size black on white for me
>> in both IE and Firefox (WinXP and Linux).
>>
>
> It is light grey on white, though it is "just" readable here due the
> angle of my monitor.
> I have the truetype fonts installed, maybe this is what Alex uses too
> and causes the issue?
I don't know. I just have the standard MS fonts. Now that I look more
closely, the font is gray rather than black, but it is easily readable
for me at all angles on my monitor.
Getting a bit off-topic here...
--
Bowie
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 12:53 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >> http://www.returnpath.net/blog/2010/01/spamassasin-rarely-misses.php
> >>
> >> Yeah, it's partly self-serving, but that's what corporate blogs are for. The people who read this
> >> blog are mostly marketers with very little exposure to the open source community, so this
> >> should help them understand a bit more of how the real email ecosystem operates.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, good article. A little difficult to read, though. Is there
> > something you're doing with the fonts to make them so light?
> >
> > The font is very small (CTRL-+ helped here), but it's so light I
> > couldn't read it.
> >
>
> I didn't have a problem. The font is normal-size black on white for me
> in both IE and Firefox (WinXP and Linux).
It is light grey on white, though it is "just" readable here due the
angle of my monitor.
I have the truetype fonts installed, maybe this is what Alex uses too
and causes the issue?
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>.
Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> http://www.returnpath.net/blog/2010/01/spamassasin-rarely-misses.php
>>
>> Yeah, it's partly self-serving, but that's what corporate blogs are for. The people who read this
>> blog are mostly marketers with very little exposure to the open source community, so this
>> should help them understand a bit more of how the real email ecosystem operates.
>>
>
> Yes, good article. A little difficult to read, though. Is there
> something you're doing with the fonts to make them so light?
>
> The font is very small (CTRL-+ helped here), but it's so light I
> couldn't read it.
>
I didn't have a problem. The font is normal-size black on white for me
in both IE and Firefox (WinXP and Linux).
--
Bowie
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by Alex <my...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
> http://www.returnpath.net/blog/2010/01/spamassasin-rarely-misses.php
>
> Yeah, it's partly self-serving, but that's what corporate blogs are for. The people who read this
> blog are mostly marketers with very little exposure to the open source community, so this
> should help them understand a bit more of how the real email ecosystem operates.
Yes, good article. A little difficult to read, though. Is there
something you're doing with the fonts to make them so light?
The font is very small (CTRL-+ helped here), but it's so light I
couldn't read it.
Thanks,
Alex
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by Jason Bertoch <ja...@i6ix.com>.
On 1/28/2010 1:52 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
>
> I wasn't planning on responding to this thread, but other positive
> responses have annoyed me.
>
> This article is borderline misleading.
>
+1 I've been biting my tongue trying not to respond.
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by "J.D. Falk" <jd...@cybernothing.org>.
On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
> I wasn't planning on responding to this thread, but other positive responses have annoyed me.
There were positive responses?
--
J.D. Falk <jd...@returnpath.net>
Return Path Inc
Re: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 01/28/2010 11:33 AM, J.D. Falk wrote:
> http://www.returnpath.net/blog/2010/01/spamassasin-rarely-misses.php
>
> Yeah, it's partly self-serving, but that's what corporate blogs are for. The people who read this blog are mostly marketers with very little exposure to the open source community, so this should help them understand a bit more of how the real email ecosystem operates.
>
> --
> J.D. Falk<jd...@returnpath.net>
> Return Path Inc
I wasn't planning on responding to this thread, but other positive
responses have annoyed me.
This article is borderline misleading.
"We didn't pay the Apache Foundation (which hosts & sponsors the
SpamAssassin project) for these scores, or try to "sell" the developers
on using it. We did talk about the products with them for quite a while:
what the listing criteria is, our plans for the future, et cetera. Some
of the developers & community members were friendly, others...not so
much. In the end, it was SpamAssassin's own testing process which
convinced them to include these tests with these scores. The data spoke
for itself, and they saw the value in it."
The data spoke for itself?
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/145597?do=post_view_threaded
The data showed that whitelists made almost ZERO difference, actually
slightly negative impact on spam filtering.
Warren
RE: blog article on 3.3.0
Posted by R-Elists <li...@abbacomm.net>.
>
> http://www.returnpath.net/blog/2010/01/spamassasin-rarely-misses.php
>
> Yeah, it's partly self-serving, but that's what corporate
> blogs are for. The people who read this blog are mostly
> marketers with very little exposure to the open source
> community, so this should help them understand a bit more of
> how the real email ecosystem operates.
>
> --
> J.D. Falk
JD,
thank you for this info
i saw your later post and here is one thanking you with a positive
response... :-)
actually, it isnt as self serving as you might think...
...thing is, people need to know about those rules to make decisions re:
their internal mail policies
thanks again
- rh