> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:46 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.... :-)
Yes they did. Not sure if they do anywmore.
> Barracuda may not use SARE, so SARE may indeed be better.
Funny story, I've had phone conversations with them about being possibly employed. I got weird mixed signals. Things didn't seem right. I heard a few stories. They asked me to come up with a solution of some sorts, which I found kind of odd. My last reply to them was along the lines of "Why reinvent the wheel?". There was no response.
Story ends with me still being mentally bored at my current job :)
Chris Santerre
SysAdmin and SARE/URIBL ninja
http://www.uribl.com
http://www.rulesemporium.com
