there are commerical products that use OSS stuff that they didn't mention
Ah, but I think you'll find that many of the products or services in the article make use of OSS in one form or another. SpamAssassin is easily the most widely used anti-spam technology available, and it will likely play a part in most vendors' anti-spam technology, ours included. We also make use of Postfix, Apache, Linux.. the list is endless.
My point is that businesses without the tech savvy to configure their own anti-spam systems (and that's most of them) will want to pay someone else to handle it for them. If they're smart, that someone else will use the best tools that exist, which is almost always OSS.
The reviewer simply chose to include several commercially available products or services which meet the needs of businesses looking to handle their spam problem. That they didn't make mention of OSS in the process was a mistake IMHO, but then how would they compare the Free options' cost to implement? (And don't try to tell me that it's zero, because FOSS takes time and expertise to master, both of which are not nearly as tangible as a price tag on a box).
My 2c, anyway. Take it or leave it; I'm biased either way.
And the media will never give them attention until they [the Open Source solutions] start spending big bucks advertising with the media
That's not strictly true -- it depends on who the intended audience is. Technology & Business Magazine is (also) a print publication here in Australia, whose audience is primarily IT managers (and therefore businesses).
Most businesses want to BUY something to fix their spam problem and not try to fix it themselves. There are exceptions to that rule, but by and large IT managers are already busy enough and just want someone or something else to fix their spam.
I know this because my company (MailGuard) is one of those in the review. And no, we don't spend huge $$$ on advertising with ZDnet; we were invited to submit for the review, as I imagine were all the other vendors.
Remember -- there are two worlds out there. Businesses will often recognise and implement Open Source solutions, but businesses also like to engage other businesses to handle non-core problems for them.
Email them from somewhere else and ask them to whitelist you.
That's fine if you're a consumer who has problems with an ISP -- you can arguably churn somewhere else that isn't blacklisted.
My company is in the business of fighting spam -- we operate a service which filters spam (and viruses, and other malware) out of our clients' email. We have had several boxes in a hosted environment caught as collateral damage directly by SPEWS. Their attitude? Too bad, take your business elsewhere, vote with your wallet.
What they don't understand is that it costs real money to set servers up, and just as much to tear them down and move to another ISP. We simply don't have that much time or money, and as a result have been stuck with the repercussions and complaints from customers.
I'm drinking a bottle of red in celebration of SPEWS demise. Their goal was honourable, but their methods despicable and I'm thrilled to see them off the face of the earth.
One of the things that MS Exchange does well is its storage of messages. It uses a database for the private store (i.e. mailboxes).. the only problem is that it's in a format not unlike MS Access. A while ago I went looking for a Linux MTA/IMAP server which supported MySQL message-storage. The closest match was Courier; it allows authentication and mailbox-location by MySQL, but not message-storage.. and there was a pretty hostile response to the suggestion that it be added. Personally, I'd love to see a Linux MTA/IMAP system which uses an SQL message-store. The ability to replicate a message-store across multiple physical sites without having to get into distributed filesystems like Coda would be a huge benefit for those who need to provide a redundant mail service.
Well, just got back from the fireworks here in Melbourne (Aust), and guess what -- my '95 box had crashed and rebooted, something it doesn't usually do without my help. Anyone surprised?:o)
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that businesses without the tech savvy to configure their own anti-spam systems (and that's most of them) will want to pay someone else to handle it for them. If they're smart, that someone else will use the best tools that exist, which is almost always OSS.
The reviewer simply chose to include several commercially available products or services which meet the needs of businesses looking to handle their spam problem. That they didn't make mention of OSS in the process was a mistake IMHO, but then how would they compare the Free options' cost to implement? (And don't try to tell me that it's zero, because FOSS takes time and expertise to master, both of which are not nearly as tangible as a price tag on a box). My 2c, anyway. Take it or leave it; I'm biased either way.
Most businesses want to BUY something to fix their spam problem and not try to fix it themselves. There are exceptions to that rule, but by and large IT managers are already busy enough and just want someone or something else to fix their spam.
I know this because my company (MailGuard) is one of those in the review. And no, we don't spend huge $$$ on advertising with ZDnet; we were invited to submit for the review, as I imagine were all the other vendors. Remember -- there are two worlds out there. Businesses will often recognise and implement Open Source solutions, but businesses also like to engage other businesses to handle non-core problems for them.
That's fine if you're a consumer who has problems with an ISP -- you can arguably churn somewhere else that isn't blacklisted.
My company is in the business of fighting spam -- we operate a service which filters spam (and viruses, and other malware) out of our clients' email. We have had several boxes in a hosted environment caught as collateral damage directly by SPEWS. Their attitude? Too bad, take your business elsewhere, vote with your wallet.
What they don't understand is that it costs real money to set servers up, and just as much to tear them down and move to another ISP. We simply don't have that much time or money, and as a result have been stuck with the repercussions and complaints from customers.
I'm drinking a bottle of red in celebration of SPEWS demise. Their goal was honourable, but their methods despicable and I'm thrilled to see them off the face of the earth.
Good riddance.
One of the things that MS Exchange does well is its storage of messages. It uses a database for the private store (i.e. mailboxes).. the only problem is that it's in a format not unlike MS Access.
A while ago I went looking for a Linux MTA/IMAP server which supported MySQL message-storage. The closest match was Courier; it allows authentication and mailbox-location by MySQL, but not message-storage.. and there was a pretty hostile response to the suggestion that it be added.
Personally, I'd love to see a Linux MTA/IMAP system which uses an SQL message-store. The ability to replicate a message-store across multiple physical sites without having to get into distributed filesystems like Coda would be a huge benefit for those who need to provide a redundant mail service.
Take a look at the photo. Now, to my eyes, Steve seems fscked off while Bill is amused. Why would that be?
:o)
Conspiracy theories abound..
Well, just got back from the fireworks here in Melbourne (Aust), and guess what -- my '95 box had crashed and rebooted, something it doesn't usually do without my help. Anyone surprised? :o)