Re: [Q]: How good is gmane for you ?

[deskpot@despammed.com (Vasily Korytov)]

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:07:49 -0800, Jon Ericson wrote:

> deskpot@despammed.com (Vasily Korytov) writes:
>
>> 1. AFAIK, it's so. But if you're subscribed to the lists, where spam
>> takes a large amount of traffic, using gmane for them is the thing, I
>> wouldn't recommend. Local spamassassin does help me much better, then
>> Gmane spam filtering (yeah, I know, I can ``report as spam'' and
>> such -- but using a dial-up it's really not comfortable).
>
> Maybe things have changed since you last tried Gmane.

I use it every day. =)) If you would look in the headers of my messages,
you'd notice that.

> For on thing, all mail is now passed through SpamAssasin and spam is
> cross-posted to gmane.spam.detected. Also, Gmane uses the clamav virus
> scanner to throw away some viruses. See <http://gmane.org/spam.php>.

I know. I _really_ mean my local spamassasin does for me better, than
the one on gmane.org. I don't know, how this happens (my prefs for it
are really slightly tweaked), but it's a fact.

-- 
       I accept RFC3156 and RFC2440-compatible encrypted mail.
PGP key fingerprint: 3273 7F6F 7B87 5DD5 9848 05FB E442 86BC 2E6B 6831