BarricadeMX experiences

[Richard Lynch]

Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> 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
>   

It was what I said it was --  a before and after picture of my results.  
Nothing else.   I did say that I used sbl-xbl at the MTA.  Although I 
didn't mention it I also ran milter-limit and milter-null.   Certainly 
there are other configurations that would work better than what I was 
doing but I would bet that many (even most) people run with a setup 
similar to mine.  But that wasn't really the point of my post.  I wasn't 
trying to prove anything.  I was just showing my experiences -- that's all.

 
If you or anyone else wants to demonstrate other solutions and compare 
them to BarricadeMX you are of course free to do that.  If you want to 
compare my configuration and posted statistics to something else you can 
do that too.  But please don't say that I was demonstrating something 
else or implying anything other than what I said in my posts. 


If you want to do some kind of overall study of various spam/virus 
solutions and give us your analysis then do it.  I'm sure everyone , 
including me, would find something like that useful.


Richard Lynch
WVNET

-- 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rich.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 299 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20070725/2dbf731a/rich.vcf