SpamAssassin 3.0 Released

davemabe writes "At long last, SpamAssassin 3.0.0 has been released. I've been using the release candidates for a month or so, and the results have been far improved over previous versions. Its use of SURBL along with Bayes auto learning make it seem like this solution is the one to beat. It looks like they've introduced a new logo as well. Snazzy!"

Comments

Plugin Architecture

[CleverFox]

The real news here is not Bayes filtering or SURBL, but the totally rebuilt plug-in architecture of SA 3.0. Plug-ins for the 2.x version were quite a bit harder to write.

Version 3.0 will result in a proliferation of good third party plug-ins that are going to put SA into more direct competition with some of the commercial vendors out there.

Re:Improved Performance?

[xcomputer_man]

I've been using RC1 for over a month now, and I'll tell you confidently that

-- Performance is MUCH better than it used to be. It scans messages much faster than I've ever seen SA 2.x do, and doesn't hog my server's resources anymore.

-- THIS THING ROCKS. For almost two weeks after I installed it I kept instinctively sending myself test emails to make sure I hadn't broken my mail system, because my volume of incoming mail had reduced so drastically. I was used to getting at least a new spam every 2 minutes. After installing SA 3.0 I got one false negative in a 72 hour period. It is *that* good. To date I still have not recorded a single false positive. I really had to convince myself that this thing was real.

This spamfilter rocks. I'd award it product of the year if I could.

Re:anto-spam

[Skuto]

There was a good scientific test linked on slashdot a while ago, comparing spamfilters and including DSPAM and SpamAssassin.

Contrary to DSPAM author's claims, both it and and CRM-114 (another package which likes to self-hype) performed quite a bit worse than SpamAssassin.

Then again, I've heard people being happy with DSPAM that were not happy with SA.

Guess it depends on the mailfeed you get.

Re:Does it use IP's or URI's ?

[platipusrc]

One of the problems with using IPs is the massive amount of Virtual Hosting being used. Say I'm a 1&1 customer, and there are 400 other domains going to the same IP as one of my domains, and I send you an email with a link to something on my site, but one spammer has managed to get an account with 1&1 for now. If they're on the same box as me, you just blacklisted 399 other domains that shouldn't have been blacklisted.