[antispam-f] Re: Chaining Hermes
- From: Jeremy Nicoll - freelists <jn.flists.73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:13:42 +0000
Dave Barnett <as10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In a recent message Jeremy Nicoll - freelists
> <jn.flists.73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think his point is that, for some reason, you're abandoning AntiSpam's
> > versatile (and free) spam filtering for that provided in Hermes (which I
> > assume is less versatile if only because it's been under development for
> > less time), and it costs money. We're just not exactly sure why anyone
> > would do that... unless they've been impressed by the vendor's adverts?
>
> It came as part of the Netfetch update, at least I wanted to give it a
> try before commenting.
I'm biased; I don't understand why people buy Netfetch at all...
> Admittedly, I was none too impressed with its spam handling, which is
> optional anyway.
> Before, I had an efficient(?) way to scan the mail, mark where
> necessary, pass to PopStar and SpamStamp and on to MessengerPro.
Before... Before what?
I don't understand what you mean by "pass to POPstar". If you were scanning
mail (by AntiSpam?) why did you need POPstar (except for its SMTP-send
capability)?
> That process involved PopStar which took the mail and passed it to
> SpamStamp
I still don't understand what POPstar does in that. Why not pass mail
straight from AS to SpamStamp?
> before making a backup and passing it on. I hoped to
> reproduce that chain with Marcel instead of PopStar.
Marcel?
> Perhaps, I'll just abandon the attempt and revert to the tried and
> trusted.
>
--
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own
Other related posts:
