BarricadeMX experiences

[Res]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message


On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, UxBoD wrote:

> I ran it for a couple of days on test, and it does do what it says on the tin <UK talk - Jules ;)).
>
> It is a very clever logic engine.

Yes but again, are you running this test on the same million or so emails
on the same hardware once without it and once with it.. Like I said, if I 
ran MIMEDefang before MS I know I also would see very little hit MS, it 
stands to reason that if you run somthing at MTA level anything after that 
is going to see less, or you'd sure as hell sope so.

The reason I left MIMEDefang (on sendmail) and qmailscanner is because of 
the holding of the SMTP session whilst doing all the tests, a few thousand 
concurrent on one box does make things a bit slow no mater how good your 
hardware is :)


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Res" <res at ausics.net>
> To: "MailScanner discussion" <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> Sent: 24 July 2007 22:12:26 o'clock (GMT) Europe/London
> Subject: Re: BarricadeMX experiences
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Richard Lynch wrote:
>
>>
>> The graph only shows what made it into the servers.  We're working on a way
>> to include the BarricateMX stats.  Last Friday (before the switchover) the
>> stats were...
>>
>> Ham: 142,860    Spam: 1,202,240    Infected: 137   Total:  1,345,100
>>
>> Yesterday it was....
>>
>> Ham: 160,886  Spam:  45,167   Infected: 32    Total: 206,053
>
>
> Of course its going to be less if you run somthing else up front.. If I
> ran MIMEDefang on the MTA's,  I'm sure MailScanner would also see very
> little, if any spam or problems.
>
>
>
>

-- 
Cheers
Res
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGpnWjsWhAmSIQh7MRAqcQAKCm0DPqUWvjVzWS6d/GP+ZhHTvwGACgn44Z
Xil0oZexr+xPauAqQKRIkzc=
=CTJS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----