11 Anti-spam Products Tested 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."
Spamassassin+Sendmail (Score:5, Informative)
you can do it yourself... for free (Score:5, Informative)
Alternately, check out MailScanner [soton.ac.uk] for one-stop mail sanitization, virus checking, and spam filtering.
Xwall rules (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yawn - No OSS (Score:5, Informative)
Results (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Free? (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:1, Informative)
---
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.
Brightmail works great (Score:5, Informative)
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.
They Forgot... (Score:3, Informative)
MailScanner! (Score:3, Informative)
The ratings all in one place (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Freeware... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Brightmail works great (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No POPFile? (Score:3, Informative)
John.
ASSP website (Score:2, Informative)
Been using it for a little over a year now and it rocks. We receive something like 10,000 emails a day--%70 of which is spam. Of those, perhaps 20-30 spam messages actually get through, which is pretty good. Also features extremely low false positives. I'm only aware of perhaps 3 during the course of the entire year. A valid user from a valid domain should get a bounce-back message explaining that their message was rejected as spam-like with brief instructions on alternate methods of contacting us.
1.09 is the version I'm running. 1.1.0 is the latest version with 1.1.1 coming soon. They are still ironing out some stability issues in the 1.1.1 version.
Re:The ratings all in one place (Score:1, Informative)
But you could have put the product name & ratings on one line each, just bold/italicize/etc. things appropriate to make them easier to interpret, thereby making the lines long enough to not trip up the filter.
Or, hey, go crazy - do both!
Just makin' suggestions for Better Slashdot Living. Please don't hurt me.
Re:No POPFile? (Score:2, Informative)
Not quite "ultimate" ... (Score:3, Informative)
Missed all of IronPort's competitors (BorderWare, Barracuda, CipherTrust).
Missed Postini, the managed Spam services leader.
I'd start with MetaGroup, Gartner or somebody like that to get a list of what the options really are ...
send them feedback (Score:2, Informative)
doh (Re:send them feedback) (Score:2, Informative)
Don't just grumble, do what I did and send them feedback.
Send a note to zdnet
sales@zdnet.com.au
ads@zdnet.com.au
prin
CC the author/editor:
edit@zdnet.com.au
While you are at it, CC the manager of RMIT IT Test Labs who did the testing: stevet@rmit.edu.au
Or if you want, post zdnet feedback to the article:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/softwar
Re:you can do it yourself... for free (Score:4, Informative)
The Test Lab Response. (Score:5, Informative)
Love all the comments !! And despite popular belief I did not get my 2 year old son to write the review.
Reading through them it seems to me there is definitely a few misconceptions that need to be cleared up, so hopefully this may sort a few things out. Then again it may not!
Before we begin down this path I appreciate your patience in getting through this abnormally large post, but it is better to deal with the comments on a whole rather than one by one.
1. We are the RMIT Test Lab, based in Australia, we are a totally separate organization from the magazine who is one of our clients, they contract us to perform three independent technology reviews every month on products that they invite the vendors to submit. The RMIT Test Lab will have been performing independent magazine reviews for 16 years in January 2005. We have certainly produced a hell of a lot of words over that time. For more information on the RMIT Test Lab hit www.testlab.rmit.edu.au The vendors don't pay the Lab one cent to have their products tested for the magazine reviews.
2. For all you Open Source buffs out there, you know who you are! The magazine creates a list of what technologies will be tested approx. six months in advance, one and a half months before going to press the magazine issues invites to various product vendors to submit product(s) to us at the lab for testing, this is generally accompanied by a "scenario" which is set by the magazine to ensure that the vendors stick to certain criteria and submit products of a certain caliber/type and not all eight products that they may have in their inventory which fits into that review category. Therefore it is the magazine who invites the vendors, not the Test Lab nor the reviewer. Basically we have no control over which vendors are invited to submit and at the end of the day every single vendor could not possibly be reviewed, there will always be some who cant submit, wont submit, have not been invited or don't have Australia as a target market. So don't blame us for not including Spam Assassin or any of the other 100's of commercial and open source Anti-Spam solutions that are out there. Also note that a review we have recently completed and submitted "E-Mail Clients" for the next edition of the magazine contained several Open Source products, and a review we have just commenced "Internet Browsers" also contains several Open Source products too. So before pulling out the "Paid for Results" and "Advertising Driven" and "Open Source Bashing" comments think again and take a look at a few of the other reviews we have performed.
3. We are fundamentally IT engineers who design and execute testing frameworks, methodologies and create reports, we just happen to have a very very small modicum of writing ability, we are by no means trained journalists "out for the scoop" or trying to generate traditional "media hype" around varying technologies. We report things as we see them. We are also very experienced in testing these technologies; in fact the majority of the work the lab is contracted to perform is private testing for corporate clients and vendors/manufacturers/developers. Therefore we will not "test" where others try unless the test will provide valid worthwhile results that we will stand behind happily. The fact that we are not journalists means that the Magazine's editorial staff have their work cut out editing our reviews while still maintaining our individual writing styles and the basic concepts of what we are trying to deliver, sometimes it is successful sometimes less so. An example for you is that the review we submitted on Spam was 7,049 words long (25 A4 pages in Word, or Writer, with screen shots and images). And that does not even include the features table or the overview table. The space available for that edition of the magazine was less than 3000 words. Therefore 4000 words had to be lost. We don't get to see the finished product until it is published. Overall I personally feel that the review turned out