[wp-testers] WP 2.6 running slow
gene at macnightowl.com
Sun Aug 3 04:18:56 GMT 2008
I don't worry about resource issues with a dedicated box. But I still
feel that a single solution ought to be adequate.
On Aug 2, 2008, at 9:12 PM, "Rick Beckman" <rick.beckman at gmail.com>
> Running WP-Spamfree means that Akismet doesn't have to ever touch the
> majority of spam. While it may not make a huge difference, the
> of spam to Akismet and the response back could amount to significant
> bandwidth/processor usage on less robust hosts. WP-Spamfree -- and
> solutions, like Bad Behavior -- help squelch spam so that further
> is used far less often.
> Rick Beckman
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Matt Moore <matt at mattmoore.ws> wrote:
>> In my sample of 12,000 spam comments Akismet has missed less than
>> 10. As
>> far as I can tell running another spam filter could only lead to
>> Gene Steinberg wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 2008, at 8:41 PM, Rick Beckman wrote:
>>> Running both WP-SpamFree & Akismet isn't a waste; if anything,
>>> it's smart
>>>> at least smarter. Spam free blocks a lot of spam, but if it comes
>>>> from a
>>>> human, it's pretty ineffective. In that event, Akismet is there
>>>> to catch
>>>> what gets through.
>>>> Rick Beckman
>>> What about the reverse?
>>> What is Akismet missing?
>>> wp-testers mailing list
>>> wp-testers at lists.automattic.com
>> wp-testers mailing list
>> wp-testers at lists.automattic.com
> wp-testers mailing list
> wp-testers at lists.automattic.com
More information about the wp-testers