Actually I mentioned that to my Barracuda sales person (we have the Spyware Firewall which is really good) and he told me that they started with SpamAssassin, but have since moved to their own software.
-- Benjamin Story, CCNA CCDA Network Administrator Dot Foods, Inc www.dotfoods.com IT Helpdesk x2312 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:46 PM To: qqqq Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server On Monday, June 12, 2006, 10:23:20 AM, qqqq qqqq wrote: > 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. Doesn't Barracuda use SpamAssassin in their boxes? If so it's not too surprising that it wouldn't perform much differently from SpamAssassin.... :-) Barracuda may not use SARE, so SARE may indeed be better. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
