You will want to add SARE for better results and switch on BAYES. Also,
choosing a content scanner like spamassassin or competing products is only
a small part of building an anti-spam/anti-malware server. I have found
that the best combination is greylisting, access lists/certain RBLs at
MTA,
Ryan Kather wrote:
I'll answer some parts...
Yes, from a purely testing perspective. I don't have the liberty of this since I am live production testing. I suppose I could move all received messages for all users through all filters and then only deliver to those users who have opted into the
From: "Ryan Kather" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Performance... are you hunting for speed or accuracy?
(perhaps you wrote it before and I missed it)
Accuracy is most important, speed is only as important as insuring that messages don't
back up in the processing queue or overload the servers.
...
Af
Thanks everyone. Great responses.
I think I have a good idea of where to go from here. I will build up the
solution and post my decided upon configuration. I would appreciate any
constructive feedback anyone has at that point, and you can be sure I will come
back to the list with any quest
>I'll answer some parts...
>> Ideas: Postfix- I would prefer to use SpamAssassin as a
>> store and forward mail filtering relay appliance. It seems if I
>> place a Postfix Linux MTA in front of my existing spam solution I
>> could setup test groups. 100 users could be forwarded to the
>
Ryan,
> Configuration: Spam Filter Store and Forward Gateway (non authenticated)
You may want to add clamd to the mix.
> I want to make sure this is as optimized as possible to provide a fair
> performance picture versus SpamAssassin and Barracuda.
>...
> I also have read a lot where people are
Great!
Thanks for the response.
I have been looking for soo long for someone who has run Barracuda versus SA or
DSPAM. We are still going to test it, but I think I trust my own
administration over Barracuda Networks of SA.. let's just say I'm not very
optimistic about the Barracuda devices
Ryan Kather wrote:
>
> SpamAssassin-
> Now here is where I need the help (assuming my postfix section was
> sound). I want to make sure this is as optimized as possible to
> provide a fair performance picture versus SpamAssassin and Barracuda.
>
> It appears many seem to be using the Amavsid-new
Ryan Kather wrote:
I'll answer some parts...
Ideas: Postfix- I would prefer to use SpamAssassin as a
store and forward mail filtering relay appliance. It seems if I
place a Postfix Linux MTA in front of my existing spam solution I
could setup test groups. 100 users could be forwarded
I wish to compare SpamAssassin's performance directly with DSPAM,
Brightmail, and a Barracuda Spam Filtering Appliance. I also intend to
publish my findings and test configurations to help other people make a
decision.
Because I run a Barracuda and SA, I can speak to this. I'm very
disa
re aggressive than others. And they thus
tend to make more mistakes. So they get scored lower. But sometimes the
slight kick of a SpamCop rule may be enough to properly mark some spam.
{^_^} Joanne
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Kather" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thu
| It also seems that there is a falling out between pyzor, dcc, razor, and the
community. Is it
simply a licensing issue (with legal implications), or are these systems flawed
otherwise. What
alternatives are there? Do I even need this functionality? Has anyone seen a
detriment to
SpamAssas
(sorry for the top-post)
Ryan,
I use SA with Postfix on FreeBSD in a border MX gateway solution for our
customers, which would serve your store and forward requirement to 3
geographic locations, with some nightly scripts to do auto-learning. The
border servers accept all mail for our domains
I am about to evaluate SpamAssassin as a replacement in my environment for our
present spam solution (Symantec Mail Security for SMTP without the BrightMail
add-on).
I wish to compare SpamAssassin's performance directly with DSPAM, Brightmail,
and a Barracuda Spam Filtering Appliance. I also
14 matches
Mail list logo
