[c-nsp] Which would be ideal spam control device ?

[Hank Nussbacher]

At 09:37 AM 17-07-05 -0700, Troy Davis wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 03:48:20PM +0800, Ian Henderson 
><ianh at chime.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. We use the IronPort appliances along with Symantec BrightMail and
> > Sophos anti-virus. Without any spam protection I get about 100 spams a
> > day. With spamassassin alone, I get about 30ish a day. With the IronPort
> > solution, I get about two or three.

Network World did a benchmark of anti=spam boxes in Dec 2004:
http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2004/122004spampkg.html
They epsecially tested for false positives and performance:
http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2004/122004spamcharts.html
It would pay to look at that chart before making a purchase.  False 
positives should always be below 1% and preferably well below .25%

-Hank


>With SpamAssassin 2.6x and Bayesian autolearning enabled (the default, I
>think), we're way below 5% false positives and false negatives, both for
>each individual recipient and organization-wide (~50 recipients).  That's
>with zero manual Bayesian training.  From what I've heard, our results
>aren't unique or hard to reproduce.  YMMV..
>
>Troy
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
>  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
>  at the Tel-Aviv University CC.