We have a 400 as well. I don't think one can even compare SA
out-of-the-box and the Barracuda. I'm catching more Spam with the use of
SA with no rules loaded than what our Barracuda is tagging. I've taken
messages that came off the Barracuda and thew it through SA. SA scored
almost 2.5 points higher than the Barracuda in several cases. I pretty
much at this time strictly use the Barracuda as a buffer to 'tone' down
traffic that would make our server drop to its knees. We are in process
of getting a firewall in place and when that happens, the Barracuda will
probably go bye..bye when I start building access lists.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, qqqq wrote:
All,
I bought a Barracuda Model 400 last October. My current setup is as follows:
Barracuda GW ---> Internal servers ---> Spamassassin server ---> Quarantine or
local delivery.
Although there was a small percentage of spam being caught by adding the
Barracuda, this was because
I added my own Regex rules on the Barracuda. Without my Regex rules, using their
"intent" RBL, a
trained bayes, and SBL-XBL RBL, the devise gave me nothing in terms of more
spam captured than
Spamassassin with SARE. In fact, I don't have concrete numbers but I am
willing to put $100 and say
SA/SARE does better.
Because I am a customer, I have access to the Barracuda Networks forums. I am
not the only one
unimpressed and since it's a moderated forum, all the postings I have made
which have a negative
undertones, do not get posted.
OK, enough of that. I bought the server in October (8 months ago) for about
$4800. This included a
years license. Well, the server has a bad drive based on their support's
diagnostics. They want me
to pay $899 to have it replaced! FWIW, if you open the box yourself, it voids
support.
I want to say that if your thinking of buying one of the Barracuda Networks
Spam Firewall
(www.barracudanetworks.com), save your money!. I would have been better off
spending about $2000
for two decent servers and running SA/SARE at the perimeter.
I hope this helps somebody else from making the same mistake.
Brian
--
"This message was sent using 100% recycled electrons."
