BarricadeMX experiences

[Kai Schaetzl]

Richard Lynch wrote on Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:31:11 -0400:

> I gave before and after statistics.  It was the same hardware and with 
> our volume the input is pretty much the same each day.  The results 
> speak for themselves.  What were overloaded servers with huge delays now 
> run fine.

But you didn't seem to use any additional tools or measures at MTA level, 
did you? I'm not saying that BarricadeMX is not good or maybe even 
exceptionally good, but I'm sure that if you use a well-balanced set of 
milters, have greylisting, use a well balanced set of RBLs and access.db 
and then compare with *that* the comparison will be much different. 
BarricadeMX may still be better, but surely not as much as to what you 
compared. You cannot compare a BarricadeMX system with a more or less 
unprotected system. For instance, only about 10 - 15% of our incoming mail 
is spam because most of the spam is already rejected at MTA level, without 
BarricadeMX. And viruses almost never make it on the systems, either, 
because they are rejected on MTA level. May not be as good as BarricadeMX, 
but good enough, especially for ressource usage.

Kai

-- 
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com