Why Spamassassin

phoenix · Post by **phoenix** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:27 am

What was the reasoning for using Spamassassin in preference to DSPAM ( http://dspam.nuclearelephant.com/ ) which seems a much cleaner solution to me.
Is there any possibility in the future that Zimbra will more more modular so that users can pick and choose between components such as an anti-spam product of their choice?
Those questions come with the warning that I'm a new linux user and I was just about to try DSPAM/Postfix when Zimbra came along.

marcmac · Post by **marcmac** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:36 am

[quote user="10330phoenix"]What was the reasoning for using Spamassassin in preference to DSPAM ( http://dspam.nuclearelephant.com/ ) which seems a much cleaner solution to me.
Is there any possibility in the future that Zimbra will more more modular so that users can pick and choose between components such as an anti-spam product of their choice?
Those questions come with the warning that I'm a new linux user and I was just about to try DSPAM/Postfix when Zimbra came along.

[/QUOTE]
We went with spamassassin because it's well known and ubiquitous. When we were integrating it, we did so with an eye toward future integration with other solutions, as well.
We integrate with Spamassassin via amavisd-new, which appears to also support dspam, so it shouldn't be too much work (check out the amavisd website, and /opt/zimbra/conf/amavisd.conf.in)

phoenix · Post by **phoenix** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:01 pm

Thanks for the answer, sounds good. I guess it's a bit more reading then.

hardaur · Post by **hardaur** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:18 am

Just for the record: I find dspam to be a VASTLY superior solution to spamassassin, as do every one of my users (I recently offered an option, it's no longer even on the table). One of the biggest issues for me is the training, spamassassin can't even hold a torch to dspam. . .leading to much poorer results (all of my dspam users are over %98 accuracy at this point, some of them (inclusive) are over %99.9).
Just my $0.02.
H

phoenix · Post by **phoenix** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:26 am

I would tend to agree with your assessment but I can only make that judgement in theory at present. I was in the process of trying to set-up a postfifix/dspam set-up when I found Zimbra, I think that offers more functionality than I would have had with my setup. If I can add dspam into that mix I'll be very happy, so as I said - some more reading I think.

15545billm · Post by **15545billm** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:49 am

[quote user="marcmac"]We went with spamassassin because it's well known and ubiquitous. When we were integrating it, we did so with an eye toward future integration with other solutions, as well.
We integrate with Spamassassin via amavisd-new, which appears to also support dspam, so it shouldn't be too much work (check out the amavisd website, and /opt/zimbra/conf/amavisd.conf.in)[/QUOTE]
FWIW, I was able to install pyzor, Vipuls Razor, and dcc on Centos4 and have amavisd (spamassassin really) pick it up and start using it. Razor and Pyzor configs are stored in their respective directories in /opt/zimbra/amavisd.
I messed around with salocal.cf a bit, but never managed to get it to add any new headers in, even after copying it just about everywhere (and in every name) I could think of. Oh well...at least the other stuff "just worked"

--Bill