Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

11 Anti-spam Products Tested

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the filter-this dept.

Spam 200

An anonymous reader writes "When we achieve world peace, that's when we'll get the perfect anti-spam solution. In the meantime, ZDNet has a comprehensive review of eleven of the latest anti-spam products including solutions from BitDefender, Clearswift, CA eTrust, GFI, IronPort, MailGuard, McAfee, MessageLabs, NetIQ, Network Box and Symantec Brightmail."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

SpamBayes? (5, Insightful)

opusman (33143) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012572)

Seems like a glaring ommission.

Re:SpamBayes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012587)

hmm. Who still gets spam anyway?

Re:SpamBayes? (2, Interesting)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012589)

Has anyone tried using all 11 on top of each other? Or would you kill too much of your desireable email. I am using Thunderbirds default spam filter, and the only span I see are ads from b&n and other online stores where I shop (still highly annoying). This is not an excuse to try to give me spam. I am fairly liberal with the distribution of my email address, I work on sourceforge after all, so what I am i doing right that others are not?

Re:SpamBayes? (1)

Anti_zeitgeist (583666) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013124)

People are dumb....they fill out silly forms with their valid email address and forget to uncheck "Send newsletters, third party...etc etc etc". What i use now a days is mailinator. I believe the website is wwww.mailinator.com It sets up an email account for you so you can fill out any form and get a reply back to verify it. Good for programs such as aim. Send them poopoo@mailinator.com Then log on to that account (no password required) at www.mailinator.com and retrieve the verification form.

SpamBayes... (4, Insightful)

John Miles (108215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012601)

... unlike the other products reviewed, doesn't advertise on ZDNet.

Re:SpamBayes? (1)

wizzardme2000 (702910) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012612)

> Seems like a glaring ommission.

Actually, it seems to me that they were only testing commercial products. A lot of really good filters are FOSS.

Honestly, they are missing most of the best known filters.

Re:SpamBayes? (5, Interesting)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012704)

IIRC, SpamAssassin once properly trained and configured has yet to lose against any commercial or foss spam solution. DSAM is another amazing FOSS spam filter that could go up against the best of commercial products. But as another poster pointed out, FOSS doesn't advertise on their website unlike the 11 products reviewed.
Regards,
Steve

Re:SpamBayes? (5, Insightful)

snorklewacker (836663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012695)

Er, the glaring omission would be any mention of the effectiveness of any of these products. Am I not clicking on the right links? Because I'm seeing less than a page worth of review for each product, that seems to consist of installing it, clicking around the admin interface, then going on to the next product. It doesn't appear that they actually used the products they were reviewing!

Re:SpamBayes? (1)

snorklewacker (836663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012850)

Never mind, I read to the end, where it assumed all the technologies were more or less equal. Poppycock.

Mod parent up (1)

chuck (477) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012852)

Holy crap yo, why are you the first person to mention this little detail?? Everyone is just talking about SpamAssassin, when they should be pointing out that the entire article is garbage. This is just about the worst "review" I have ever read. Ich...

Re:SpamBayes? (2, Interesting)

barcelona_stony (745683) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013021)

I've had to configure CA eTrust at work (pointy hairs make the decision) and it was knocking off good emails from an inaccurate blacklist in minutes. I have to wade around with settings, users are powerless, and the company is getting mad at me for spending to much time 'configuring' it.

If I could put DSpam [nuclearelephant.com] on Exchange, I'd be happier than a clam. DSpam, for those who don't know it, is a great Bayesian filter.

but I WANT spam... (2, Funny)

Vthornheart (745224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012575)

you insensitive clod!

Re:but I WANT spam... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012728)

Of course you do. It's the only time someone mentions "penis" to you without breaking into fits of laughter :-)

Re:but I WANT spam... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012990)

e-mail address please?

Re:but I WANT spam... (1)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013164)

Check out my siggy :D

Yawn - No OSS (5, Insightful)

OnceWas (187243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012578)

Where are the OSS products? No Spamassassin?

Some review...

Re:Yawn - No OSS (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012628)

spamassassin is definately used by messagelabs, gfi, and mcafee in part or in whole. If you poke around you can find information about it.

Re:Yawn - No OSS (2, Insightful)

OnceWas (187243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012679)

And yet - if true - this (and OSS) gets no mention in the review.

And nobody on the review team thought of this?

Re:Yawn - No OSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11013041)

Spamassassin (along with other systems) is used on the Network Box also..

Re:Yawn - No OSS (4, Informative)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012724)

Hey everyone, don't like the article? Let them know through the Talkback [zdnet.com.au] feature.

One word: Thunderird (1)

rekrutacja (647394) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013052)

It's build in spam killer works simply great

OSS (-1, Redundant)

derxob (835539) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012595)

No reviews for the open source products.. I have a great time with Spam Assassin.

Re:OSS (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012735)

A few of those commercial products are based off of spam assassin. Where's the credit? Where's the source?
Regards,
Steve

Re:OSS (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013014)

No reviews for the open source products.. I have a great time with Spam Assassin.

That's why I do not subscribe any more. Too much vendor influence and not enough objectivity.

/. is a much better forum as you get the good, the bad and the ugly - all products have all three. Bias does creap in but at a much lower level than a closed for comment rag (or is that mag?).

But I am biased, SpamAssassin with MimeDefang, custom milter and a few subscriptions to SpamHaus and SpamCop go along way in filtering spam.

Summary (0, Redundant)

djward (251728) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012596)

How about a sentence of summary on the results in the writeup? Geez, it's like you expect me to RTFA or something.

Re:Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012663)

According to my experience slashdot never gives summaries in the "stories" because it is only a link distribution network.

The ratings all in one place (5, Informative)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012862)

Product :BitDefender v1.9 for MS Exchange2003

Interoperability: 2.5 Futureproofing 3 ROI 4.5 Service 4.5 Rating 3.5

Product Clearswift MIMEsweeper for SMTP 5.0

Interoperability 3 Futureproofing 4 ROI 4 Service 2 Rating 3.5

Product CA eTrust Secure Content Manager v1.0

Interoperability 4 Futureproofing 3.5 ROI 3.5 Service 5 Rating 4

Product GFI Mail Essentials v10.1

Interoperability 3 Futureproofing 3.4 ROI 4 Service NULL Rating 3.5
Product IronPort C30

Interoperability 3 Futureproofing 4.5 ROI 3.5 Service 4 Rating 4
Product MailGuard

Interoperability 3 Futureproofing 4 ROI 4 Service 3.5 Rating 4
Product McAfee SpamKiller & WebShield

Interoperability 3 Futureproofing 3.5 ROI 3.5 Service 4 Rating 3.5
Product MessageLabs AntiSpam Service

Interoperability 3 Futureproofing 4 ROI NULL Service 3.5 Rating 4
Product NetIQ MailMarshal SMTP 6.0.3.8

Interoperability 4.5 Futureproofing 4 ROI 4 Service NULL Rating 4
Product Network Box Internet Threat Prevention System

Interoperability 3 Futureproofing 4 ROI 5.5 Service 5 Rating 4
Product Symantec BrightMail AntiSpam 6.0.1

Interoperability 4 Futureproofing 4.5 ROI 4 Service NULL Rating 4.5

It looks as though Network Box Internet Threat Prevention System did the best. Several items have NULL in a category beecause the editors did not have enough information to rate the product on in that area. This post brought to you by Centum because my average charachters per line were too low. You know how silly that is?

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11013097)

MOD PARENT UP

SpamAssassin (4, Insightful)

AnotherFreakboy (730662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012598)

I wonder why they didn't mention SpamAssassin. Open Source solutions will never gain the market share they deserve if media never gives them the attention they deserve. And the media will never give them attention until they get market share. It's a deadly cycle. Note: Open Source does not inherently make a product worthy of market share.

Re:SpamAssassin (4, Insightful)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012707)

Open Source solutions will never gain the market share they deserve if media never gives them the attention they deserve. And the media will never give them attention until they get market share.

How about:

``Open Source solutions will never gain the market share they deserve if media never gives them the attention they deserve. And the media will never give them attention until they [the Open Source solutions] start spending big bucks advertising with the media''.

No chicken-and-egg stuff here: I would bet that ZDNet is following thier long-standing policy of reward^H^H^H^Hviewing their advertisers' products.

Re:SpamAssassin (5, Interesting)

Mowog (20830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012909)

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.

Re:SpamAssassin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012790)

cnet had given high ratings to shitty products and low ratings for good ones.

its not cnet thats the problem though, its why slashdot posted a story about for-pay windows anti-spam tools that most people on this site dont give a rats ass about.

Re:SpamAssassin (1)

asliarun (636603) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012954)

IMHO, the reason why open-source alternatives are not as popular as the commercial products is that these products are not unanimously "pushed" by the users/open source community themselves. I don't mean this as flame-bait, nor am i a guru of ANY sort. However, i am an avid and enthusiastic user of open source products such as Firefox (moox).

I think that open source successes such as Firefox should be replicated. Where open source lacks in marketing muscle, it can make up in word-of-mouth awareness or its internet equivalent. However, most open source products suffer because they mostly compete with not the paid products, but with other open source alternatives themselves! If only there can be concerted efforts to *push* certain mainstream open source products, i think that it can be a major force. Firefox 1.0 is proof of this.

Again, please don't take this as criticism of any sort, but only as a suggestion.

IM better than that (0, Redundant)

silid (733394) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012605)

it ignores the best antispam tool ever - not using email at all and sticking to instant messaging - with my computer always being on and auto accepting file transfers its a bonus

Re:IM better than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012691)

gimme your IM ID plz and i will flood your HD with GBs of crap

Re:IM better than that (1)

silid (733394) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012717)

thats why its good antispam - cos i have to approve everyone on my list ;)

Re:IM better than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012760)

you can have this with email too though. too lazy to set it up? eeeeeew...!!

Re:IM better than that (2, Insightful)

eclectechie (411647) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012794)

thats why its good antispam - cos i have to approve everyone on my list ;)

You can do that with email, too; block everything not explicitly whitelisted.

IM has no advantage here.

Re:IM better than that (1)

silid (733394) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013049)

the real point is that by not getting any email you dont get any spam - ok so i can't tell jokes but i do know the usefulness of im (and its limitations)

Re:IM better than that (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012784)

And if you throw out your computer, you'll never have a crash, malfunction or have to upgrade.

missing (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012606)

No Giant Anti Spyware?

Spamassassin+Sendmail (4, Informative)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012616)

Between Spamassassin and Sendmail using a few blacklists, I get almost no spam. Based on my logs from the past week, I've blocked nearly 500 messages. Not bad when you consider I run a small server with few users.

Re:Spamassassin+Sendmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012672)

I've blocked nearly 500 messages

Damn, I've been trying for weeks to email yo1102248200.085550 delivery 210: deferral: 221.21.134.5_does
_not_like_recipient./Remote_hos t_said:_450_:_Sende r_address_rejected

Re:Spamassassin+Sendmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012720)

1. sendmail sucks. plz use qmail or at least postfix.
2. 500 messages? that's what i get a day on one account alone! lucky guy fella!

All expensive, why not... (1)

toxic666 (529648) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012629)

postfix and a Bayesian filter called from procmail. Mine is set up as a mail gateway to keep everything but https on Exchange isolated from the Internet.

More features, better performance, better uptime, lower cost.

Uhh (3, Insightful)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012637)

Why not just use thunderbird [mozilla.org] , it already has pretty good anti-spam capabilities in it to begin with and it's free and open source. I will admit I only installed it a few hours ago so I haven't been using it very long. The reason I installed it was because Eudora for OS X was very slow and for some reason was deleting my newest email every time I tried to download new email. Thunderbird is extremely fast, has better features, no popups, and is free. So far I have encountered no bugs, except some of the spam filtering features were a little unintuitive so I had to try them all out to see what did what.

Re:Uhh (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012685)

this is for server side anti-spam products. some people want to stop spam before it gets into the email system

Re:Uhh because your server get hit (1)

daxomatic (772926) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012712)

and if that does not know what to do put's it to your mailer,
i must say thunderbird does a good job, :)
but if yuor smtp server does not hold your spam.... pooor you AND me

Re:Uhh (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012766)

Thunderbird is not a full groupware solution that many companies require. I use thunderbird, its filtering capabilites are amazing. Regardless, in a corporate environment with a mail gateway receiving tons of mail, you need a central point of filtering for it to be most effective. In some companies, client side filtering will work fine, but not in any that I've worked for.
Steve

you can do it yourself... for free (5, Informative)

jjeffries (17675) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012649)

Let me just take a moment to say that sa-exim [merlins.org] kicks ass. It stops your spam before SMTP accepts it, so no mail is ever deleted. Exim is about the most configurable piece of software there is, and who doesn't know about SpamAssassin [apache.org] ?

Alternately, check out MailScanner [soton.ac.uk] for one-stop mail sanitization, virus checking, and spam filtering.

/. Filter (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012657)

Now /. needs a spam filter for all the stupid remarks people post. Just make sure you don't lock me out.

BOFH-grade products. (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012660)

> eleven of the latest anti-spam products including solutions from BitDefender, Clearswift, CA eTrust, GFI, IronPort, MailGuard, McAfee, MessageLabs, NetIQ, Network Box and Symantec Brightmail.

How can this list be considered even remotely complete? What about the personalized Louisville Slugger [sluggergifts.com] , the noble etherkiller [fiftythree.org] and (for your Tier 1 types who work in volume) the 1200-bung-per-hour-rated Jarvis Sow Bung Dropper [technex.pl] ?

Oh, wait, this is a review of anti-spam products, not anti-spammer products. Never mind.

Xwall rules (3, Informative)

alen (225700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012661)

We use Xwall where I work. It's $349 and you get free lifetime support and upgrades. And with the new greylisting feature 99% of all spam is stopped.

Spam "products" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012668)

It seems that many people these days now just look to pick up a pretty box at the store to help deal with spam. However, anyone who does this must not get important e-mail. I, for one, don't want my e-mail being filtered by some proprietary application like mcafee with limited configurability and disclosing details on how it works for "trade secret/IP" reasons. If it's an ip blocking service, I want statistics and to know how IPs get on it. If it's something statistical, I want to know exactly what it does. It is very dangerous to let your correspondence get picked apart by a "black box."

Re:Spam "products" (1)

itwerx (165526) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012920)

Barracuda Networks [barracudanetworks.com] makes a pretty good "pretty box" that satisfies the PHBs while retaining OSS goodness. And a damn sight better than the products in the review!
(I know, I had to evaluate them all recently! Grr... Told 'em OSS was the way to go...)

Dynacomm i:mail does 99% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012698)

We use Dynacomm i:mail [dciseries.com] and achieve 99% spam blocking with very little false positives. There is also a web interface for users to manage their own blocked messages and training. Very effective with little to no administrative overhead.

ZDnet = paid promotion (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012708)

Notice there are no free products listed. If you "contribute" some ad revenue to ZDnet, they'll look at/write about your product. Otherwise....

...ZDNet reviews products for WINDOWS (3, Interesting)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012716)

...and serious admins aren't exposing Windows to the internet to accept mail. But that's ZDNet for you....

Re:...ZDNet reviews products for WINDOWS (0)

SpiffyMarc (590301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012949)

Serious admins are probably using Microsoft Outlook tied to some form of Exchange Server. I know it hurts to think it, but Microsoft has the market share in that area, and if you look up the meaning of "market share" it becomes obvious what the majority of admins are using. :-)

Re:...ZDNet reviews products for WINDOWS (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012989)

Serious admins are probably using Microsoft Outlook tied to some form of Exchange Server. I know it hurts to think it, but Microsoft has the market share in that area, and if you look up the meaning of "market share" it becomes obvious what the majority of admins are using. :-)

Sure...but how many are behind *nix mail gateways?

Re:...ZDNet reviews products for WINDOWS (2, Interesting)

SpiffyMarc (590301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013033)

Hopefully most of them!

Postfix gateway + Exchange 2003 server = corporate email bliss.

Re:...ZDNet reviews products for WINDOWS (1)

Aggrazel (13616) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013005)

A managed service product such as the one my company offers works with anything out there. Ours runs on linux fwiw, and from what I read here is much better than the others listed. (though I can't force myself to slashvertize in a comment really, I'm an admin, not a salesperson.)

Results (3, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012726)

Some people just go to the last page anyway :-)

Software winner: Symantec Brightmail, for ease of installation, configuration and administration as well as an excellent user interface and detailed "live" graphical reporting it would be hard to surpass these features.

Managed Service winner: Network Box, if security is a concern then Network Box has the bases covered, if availability and redundancy are your preferred choice then a trial of either MailGuard or MessageLabs may be on the cards.

Appliance winner: IronPort, strong security, redundancy and recently developed ease of installation with the new GUI make this appliance the choice in this review. For those with a tighter budget then perhaps one of the McAfee WebShield appliances may be considered and are still very worthy contenders.

The catch... (3, Insightful)

Jayde Stargunner (207280) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012886)

The other noteworthy point of the last page is the absolutely ridiculous statement of, "Please note that these decisions were not based on accuracy testing."

I'm sure everyone is just amazingly psyched about an "ultimate" anti-spam guide that makes no effort to determine if the products they are reviewing (let alone proclaiming as the "winner") actually stop spam.

Of course, I guess this kind of article is developed to benifit CIOs with no technical experience, who just want something to tell the IT department to install. (Thus: price and ease of installation are far more important than it actually doing what it is supposed to.)

Re:The catch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11013025)

Of course, I guess this kind of article is developed to benifit CIOs with no technical experience, who just want something to tell the IT department to install. (Thus: price and ease of installation are far more important than it actually doing what it is supposed to.)

That falls under the 'ease of reviewing' class - if the reviewer is not too stressed knowledge-wise and sees lots of nifty dials/displays, then he/she/it will give more 'points'. Needless to say, don't read these reviewing reviews unless all you plan on doing is reviewing the said products ... whew!

SpamAssassin! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012739)

SpamAssassin 3.0.1 works great for my company's email. I have about 20 users. I am doing all the scanning on a cheap Dell. We accept about 1500 messages a day... most being spam. My users will see maybe 1 or 2 unflagged spam messages in their mailbox throughout the day. We have not had any (reported) problems with false positives.

I am really excited about SpamAssassin being an Apache project now.

BitDefender on Postfix (1)

smilheim (804292) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012744)

I run BitDefender (and resell) and SpamAssassin with Postfix. With that setup I might receive 1 message that I would consider spam a week in my Inbox. Even unwanted emails from friends is marked as spam. Can't beat that.

No POPFile? (2, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012747)

Before I moved to Gmail I used POPFile [sourceforge.net] . Not only as a spam filter, but to classify mail into categories. After a week of training it almost never got anything wrong.

Re:No POPFile? (2, Informative)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013113)

And POPFile's new IMAP module lets you still use POPFile with Gmail and as well as getting spam filtering you can use POPFile's general sorting mechanism.

John.

Is this for real? (5, Interesting)

JumboMessiah (316083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012750)

When being initially trialled/evaluated we would expect most anti-spam applications to run around 65 percent to 70 percent spam catch accuracy with very low to zero false positives in "default" or "out of the box" configurations. Then, once given the benefit of being "tuned" or "tweaked" and having localised white and black lists applied they should run at about 85 percent to 92 percent

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd expect a little more out of a product that costs thousands to implement. With a little research and dedication my SA 3.0.1 setup has no problem spanking those numbers.

I'm also assuming that none of these products produced extremely stellar results. The article never mentions any statistics based upon corpus runs for any of them. This is nothing more than TLA eyecandy...

Re:Is this for real? (1)

ManxStef (469602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013059)

Well said! It shows the general quality of the article when they don't even bother to publish the results of the TESTING, let alone do a proper test, train, re-test, auto-learn, test again with each of the products! Instead it's just a "this one is easy to install, this one's got a pretty UI" waste of time.

The fact that they then quote ridiculously low percentages for spam recognition (when they should be aiming in the 95-99.9% bracket) and don't mention ANY of the problems of spam filtering such as false-positives ONCE, what each system does with mail marked as spam, or how each system plugs into a virus scanner (as essential as the spam-filtering itself; yes, I know they have a summary table at the end but it's only of the Y/N type with no detail) just puts the nail in the coffin. That article really is of very little use.

For people that have more of a clue and would like to implement something cheap but effective, this article gives a full step-by-step on how to create a Debian-based Postfix + Amavis-new + SpamAssassin + Razor + Pyzor + ClamAV + DCC mail relay (ideal for protecting an Exchange server, for instance):
http://www200.pair.com/mecham/spam/spamfilter20041 003.html [pair.com]

I use none of these, and still get no spam (2, Interesting)

wizardNinja (835459) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012756)

huh...I dont get spam because i dont give out my email to any random person/site, etc...And if i need to give out an email, i have a couple of yahoo emails that are pretty disposable... Actually, i dont really get any mail at all...yeah... My roommate (college) gets lots of viruses. I cleaned up his comp one day and discovered a virus which had installed with his permission. It was actually in Add/Remove programs (windows). It had a readme file that said that it had installed after the user clicked OK to allow it. Yeah.. So Funny...

Re:I use none of these, and still get no spam (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012824)

And you trusted (a) that the add/remove really worked, (b) that the readme wasn't lying?

Re:I use none of these, and still get no spam (1)

wizardNinja (835459) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013147)

Well, I scanned the comp again, of course.

Re:I use none of these, and still get no spam (1)

SlashdotMeNow (799901) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012869)

You don't need to give out your email to get spam. I get loads of spam because someone that had my email address in their Outhouse contact list got 0wned by some worm / virus / spyware which distibuted my address to some big spammer somewhere. Getting spam is not always your own fault. Although it is pretty stupid to use your real email address to sign up for anything on the web.

Re:I use none of these, and still get no spam (1)

realdpk (116490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013076)

"Actually, i dont really get any mail at all."

Heh well, there ya go. Good on you. Hey, I've got an email address I never use, too, and somehow it doesn't get spam either. It's amazing.

Teh Win: Barracuda Networks blocks a MILLION spams (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012758)

I run email for some high traffic email domains ... millions of emails a day being blocked by a barracuda v400 ... these things really kick butt and are CAKE to maintain... I recommend them highly and am very surprised they did not make it into the zdnet review -
www.barracudanetworks.com

Free? (3, Informative)

wk633 (442820) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012767)

Lots of free things mentioned like SpamAssasin.

My company uses mxlogic.com. $1.25 per mailbox per month. At 60 people, that's WAY cheaper than my time to administer anything. I havn't heard a peep of a complaint from users after switching. Before were using a device (eSafe by Alladin systems). It was taking up to an hour/day of my time. And it wasn't free.

Just remember to include admin time when working out 'free'.

Very low expections over there (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012768)

"Please note that these decisions were not based on accuracy testing. Given the Labs' extensive anti-spam testing experience, when being initially trialled/evaluated we would expect most anti-spam applications to run around 65 percent to 70 percent spam catch accuracy with very low to zero false positives in "default" or "out of the box" configurations."

---

With both DSPAM and CRM114 (individually, not together), I had over 95% spam rejection after training with 100 or so messages. I eventually settled on CRM114 as it was easier, at least for me, to maintain. I like it, my customers like it, and it was F-R-E-E!!!

Only PHBs take their technology cues from the likes of ZDlabs.

What's this? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012785)

The article has a ridiculously low number of words to a page, making offline reading a hassle and having me spend more time loading pages than reading. Half of the text on a page is ad. And they don't cover SpamAssasin. In fact, it looks like the reviewed software is Windows only - though I gave up reading after a few pages.

Is this the kind of corporate crap people get in Australia? If so, I seriously feel sorry for those who live there...

Brightmail works great (4, Informative)

Burdell (228580) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012788)

I work for an ISP, and we've been using Brightmail since before version 1. We use the MAPS [mail-abuse.com] DNS blocklists as a "front-line" defense and then Brightmail for spam and virus filtering. You can see our email statistics here [hiwaay.net] .

I wrote the original sendmail milter interface to Brightmail that they derived their milter software from. We still run my milter because I've added additional options over time; Brightmail includes an SDK that you can use to interface to custom setups easily.

Re:Brightmail works great (2, Informative)

bigbadbob0 (726480) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013067)

I was surprised that it wasn't mentioned in the write-up that IronPort appliances use Brightmail.

They Forgot... (2, Informative)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012792)

...the Barracuda Spam Firewall. It's easy to set up, and it "just works". There is also ASSP. I don't have the linkage right now though...

Re:They Forgot... (1)

Enderwiggin13 (734997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013091)

bingo, i'd recommend this thing to anyone. Its simple to set up and maintain, and it catches 99% of the spam on my office network with 0 false positives to date.

Re:They Forgot... (1)

tbdean (163865) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013112)

I'll be getting my 'Cuda demo box Wednesday. The 300.

How are you protecting your outgoing SMTP traffic? Barracuda doesn't act as an SMTP AUTH Proxy. Are you leaving port 25 open and just not pointing an MX record to it, or are you using some other firewall for outboung SMTP?

Link: http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ [barracudanetworks.com]

What we really want to see: (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012805)

11 Anti-spammer Products Tested

The test is stupid! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012812)

This review does not actually test the ability of the software to catch spam. It is just a beauty contest.

MailScanner! (2, Informative)

prandal (87280) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012855)

MailScanner [mailscanner.info] is a brilliant piece of work which integrates Sendmail/Postfix/Exim/whatever with SpamAssassin (plus Razor/Pyzor/DCC) and ClamAV/BitDefender/Sophos/Mcafee/etc, all driven by highly customisable rulesets. It's open source, support via the MailScanner Mailing List is second to none, and its author, Julian Field, is always improving an already excellent product. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

*Not* accuracy tested (2)

x3ro (628101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012883)

Please note that these decisions were not based on accuracy testing

So - exactly why would anyone waste more than two seconds on these reviews? Just so we can find out what they think of the GUIs and how easy they are to install .. without an analysis of how effective they are at blocking spam? What crap.

Freeware... (5, Informative)

vitalyb (752663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012903)

They also ignored any kind of freeware, not only Linux ones, SpamPal [spampal.org] for example.

Also, their reviews were pretty shallow, I would expect at least to know how am I to connect to this spam filter, there are numerous ways, some better, some worse.

It's a Beauty Pagent (2, Insightful)

R_Harrold (669587) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012975)

That is what this article is. It fails to address some of the most significant issues to be considered when selecing an anti-spam product: 1. What percentage of incoming SPAM does it catch? 2. What percentage of the messages caught were "Non-SPAM" messages? 3. What is the message volume the product can handle? Instead they gloss over catch rates and false positive rates with a "Everything does a similar job" type statement. FALSE. I just spent the past 8 months evaluating anti-spam solutions for my workplace and they are not all the same when it comes to spam catch rates. I don't really care how pretty it looks or how easy it is to install. Nor do I give a hoot about the buzzwords a particular product incorporates, give me the spam blocking accuracy and the volume it will handle. It is all fine and dandy to ignore volume when you are running a 200 user ISP, but when you get up to 50000 users with over a million messages a day it becomes slightly important. Robert H. Houston, TX

IRC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11012985)

I use IRC you insensitive clod!

Testing? (2, Insightful)

Grey (14278) | more than 9 years ago | (#11012987)

This does look like a test to me. It look like a bunch of marketing speek.
We did not perform any "official" accuracy and performance testing on the products. We set the programs up in modes to test both controlled and live messages, however the results of these brief tests would just add more confusion to the mix than anything and certainly didn't show any unexpected results.
or the MS exchange 2003 only product got 2.5 stars and many others got 3?

Every product review is like, it installs easily, and quickly. So what, are you as sysadmin or moron?

A test should give performance facts like false negative and false positive rates. This is nothing but a bunch of marketting crap and should not be posted.

ok, here we go.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11013002)

in soviet russia, spam blocks you, blah blah blah, ???? profit!!! is it open source? fucking republicans! fucking democrats! fucking libertarians! fucking french!

Not exactly comprehensive (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013031)

What, no Spamassassin, SpamBayes or PureMessage?

I guess they can't have been keeping up with their 'protection' payments.

Bullet (1)

tuxter (809927) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013036)

The Best anti spamguard available.... A Bullet!

RedCondor + SpamAssassin (1)

Dhar (19056) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013037)

My solution of choice is RedCondor [redcondor.com] paired with SpamAssassin. Only about 2-3 spam make it into my inbox per week with this...and I haven't even really tweaked SpamAssassin much.

-g.

TMDA gets rid of 98% of my spam (1)

commonloon (543695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013133)

http://tmda.net/

and a simple rule:

BOUNCE_ENV_SENDER = "spambounce@domain.com" ....where spambounce goes to our friend /dev/null.

Use them all! (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013153)

You won't get an spam ever again! Then again, you probably won't be able to find a single real message that could wend its way through them all either.

Wow, no content at all. (1)

Attilla_The_Pun (525777) | more than 9 years ago | (#11013156)

I seriously have no idea WHY ZDNet chose not to run these products against a known corpus of spam...of which there are quite a few [google.com] out on the internet. So, this "review" is based upon the pretty interfaces, and installation...but nothing to do with the ability of these products to filter out all the "BIGGER PENIS NOW" mail. ...some review. Someone mentioned that all the listed vendors advertise on ZDNet. No surprise there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?