> et!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.p as.earthlink.net.POSTED!n
> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.mail.misc,comp.os.linux.ne tworking
> From: Alan Connor <alanconnorearthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Spammers LUV SpamAssassin
> References: <slrnbkvnad.3ee.dhbrownhobbes.dhbrown.net>
> <7d84b.2300$Lk5.223newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>
> <cca4b.2526$Lk5.815newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>
> <fwq4b.3824$Lk5.3575newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>
> <QGu4b.4059$Lk5.195newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>
> <gZH4b.4562$Lk5.1261newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>
> <8dU4b.6021$Lk5.3223newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>
> Reply-To: [email]alanconnorearthlink.net[/email]
> User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)
> Lines: 55
> Message-ID: <Z8K5b.9448$Lk5.7097newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>
> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 16:56:25 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 18.104.22.168
> X-Complaints-To: [email]abuseearthlink.net[/email]
> X-Trace: newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net 1062694585 22.214.171.124 (Thu, 04
> Sep 2003 09:56:25 PDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:56:25 PDT
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- [url]http://www.EarthLink.net[/url]
> Xref: cyclone.socal.rr.com comp.os.linux.misc:373894 comp.mail.misc:32116
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:31:08 +0300, Timo Voipio <oh_hamihotmail.com> wrote:
>> Alan Connor wrote:
>>> By-the-way, Alice, elrav1 is just a collection of well-commented shell scripts,
>>> not a bloated binary monstrosity like SA.
>> By-the-way, Alan (in case that's your real name), spamassassin is just a
>> collection of perl scripts and C code.
>>> If you are at all *nix/sh literate, you can easily read it and see for yourself
>>> what is happenning.
>> If you are perl- and/or C-literate, you can easily read it and see for
>> yourself what's happening.
> Let's see. How many people are there who can read shell scripts compared
> to those who can read C and Perl?
> Also, the C comes compiled, right? For most people it certainly does.
> So they have to make a special effort to get the uncompiled code.
> And SA is HUGE compared to my program. And to use perl you have to have the
> massive perl program installed, don't you. Making SA larger by miles.
> Everyone has a shell already, don't they?
> SA is also far more complex than my program. Much more difficult to use.
> Then there's the huge memory footprint of SA/perl, and mine has NONE.
> But the real bottom line is, of course:
> MY PROGRAM *WORKS* AND SA DOESN'T.
> I look forward to your next silly post.
> Alan C