[OT] Quoting Etiquette Re: Questions about SA

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

Mr Nutter,

May I ask why I've been quoted into this thread?

As I've asked you before, please don't hijack threads when creating a new 
topic, but if you must, please at the VERY least remove the text of the 
unrelated message.

I'm in general not too particular about details of trimming your quoting, 
but clearly quoting an entire off-topic message is a waste and contributes 
to confusion for people performing searches, filters, etc.

There's a lot of mail in my mailbox, and I have my mailclient set up to 
track replies to my posts to make it easier to follow up with people I'm 
helping. My mailclient spotted the portion of this email which quotes me, 
and filtered it as something I need to follow up on.


At 08:48 AM 8/25/2004, Ronald I. Nutter wrote:
>I just finished getting SA up and running using the Scott L Henderson
>document.  It passes the tests in the documents.  I don't see Spam
>assassin running as a process like postfix and amavisd.  Is there a way
>to check that it is running ?
>
>Also, what is suggested for hardware to run it on ?  I will be dealing
>with 1500 faculty/staff/students.  I have it on a 400 mhz pentium with
>32 megs of ram.  I know I will need to add more memory before going to
>production but wasn't sure about the processor.
>
>Ron
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ron Nutter                          ron_nutter@georgetowncollege.edu
>Network Manager
>Information Technology Services                        (502)863-7002
>Georgetown College
>Georgetown, KY                                            40324-1696
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Andersen [mailto:jsa@pen.homeip.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:39 AM
>To: spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [OT] Spam FIREWALL software
>
>
>On Tuesday 24 August 2004 12:05 pm, Raquel Rice wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:00:14 -0400
> >
> > Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com> wrote:
> > > Admittedly SA is tweakable to reduce FP's considerably, but being a
> > > SA user the 1/25,000 FP rate doesn't choke me up at all. If it's
> > > true, it's quite impressive. Very few spamfilters can claim a FP
> > > rate anywhere near that low.
> >
> > The concern I have is what happens to false positives?  They don't get
>
> > past the firewall, so what if that's something important?
>
>Ask yourself this:  What happens to the "important" message just deleted
>by the user in frustration of dealing with 300 spams per day?  Or the
>"important" message lost by a still too flaky smtp network.
>
>My take on this is:
>Who would send anything "important" by email without a follow-up or
>confirmation of some kind?
>
>If it was important then one should send a follow up or
>request a return receipt.
>
>
>--
>_____________________________________
>John Andersen