Re: Dspam dev status

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:35:05 -0700, Bradley Giesbrecht <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> 
>> On 01/10/10 08:50, Eric Bischoff wrote:
>>>> I'd be more pessimistic on this figure. The hash driver seems to
>>>> be broken
>>>> and I do not think another release should be done while it isn't
>>>> fixed.
>>>>

Hi there,

I just got news from the editor of the french gnu linux magazine, and the november issue will feature an article on Dspam 3.9.1.
However, since I didn't know about the issues with the hash driver before sending the article for publication, the described set up will be based on the hash driver.

Therefore, I can't but agree that the hash driver issue should be fixed before a stable version is released.

Also, somewhere in the documentation is stated that the hash driver is the only fast enough driver to use SPBH. Is that still true ?


Thanks,

Julien Vehent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization is moving to the mainstream and overtaking non-virtualized
environment for deploying applications. Does it make network security 
easier or more difficult to achieve? Read this whitepaper to separate the 
two and get a better understanding.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/hp-phase2-d2d