I've been using the Cloudmark's Spamnet on my system for a few weeks now, and it just doesn't seem to do the job very well.
First of all, with my MAPI connection, The spam email is sitting there waiting for Spamnet when I start Outlook. Spamnet won't automatically scan new mail on start up. It's a couple of clicks to make it scan the Inbox. Which it does _slowly_. Also, it checks all mail in the requested folder rather than just "Unread" mail. If you have rules that have moved mail to other folders while outlook is running, you'll have to manually check those folders for Spam. In my case, it seems to block _maybe_ 50% of the 15-30 spam messages that I get eache evening. Then I have to block them manaully, which is also time consuming. And more often than not, the same Spam from the same source (or something slightly similar) is back the next day and I start over. I gather from reading the Cloudmark forums that it has the same problem with IMAP clients. It apears that it's really only designed for use with POP mailboxes. Spamnet seems to run well during the day, however since this morning, it's only 2 for 6 in correctly catching Spam. I also wonder about how well this whole "community reporting" thing is going to work. I religiously report spam everyday, but it seems the same stuff comes over and over again. I know that people are going to block newsletters, I've done it myself by mistake. But consider this. A company called "Kean Offers" has my name on their lists and is sending me Spam. But, this company just happens to be a legit opt-in company, and they will happily take me off their mailing list if I click "Remove". They got my name from a purchased mailing list, not from me opting in, but since they have a working remove policy, they can legitimately argue that they should not be blocked. However, I have no idea whether the "remove" link is legit, or if it's just going to get me on more mailing lists! And isn't it just as easy for a spamming compnay to "unblock" itself as it is for users to block them? Dr. Evil is evil, not stupid. Seeing as how the Spam blocking feauture doesn't seem all that effective now, I can only imagine that strategies to thwart Spamnet are in the works. I'd feel better if the company seemed to be participating in there support forums. Most of the questions and comments on the web page are simply answered by other users saying "Me Too" Jim Helfer WTW Architects Pittsburgh PA Go Stillers ::-----Original Message----- ::From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ::Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:43 AM ::To: Exchange Discussions ::Subject: RE: Brightmail :: :: ::Actually I've just completed an installation of Razor, which is the ::open-source predecessor to Cloudmark's SpamNet. Like SpamNet, ::Razor uses ::consensus votes to determine what is and is not spam, and by ::using a simple ::procmail script I have the software marking spam as described by the ::original poster. It is server-based. :: ::Now the tricky part is that the spam nomination agent ::(razor-report) and the ::revocation agent (razor-revoke) are both un*x-based, so the ::average user is ::not going to be able to use them. It might be possible to set ::up a reporting ::mailbox to which the users could forward the spam and have a ::script report ::them, but let's think about that for a moment. They're users. ::The first ::person here who set up SpamNet was using it to report ::birthday announcements ::from our HR department. If you let the users decide what is ::spam, you'll ::break the model that Razor and SpamNet use: responsible ::reporting. For that ::reason alone I would prefer to have a human filter what users ::think is spam ::before reporting it. :: ::(As a side note, they are now weighing nominations and ::cancellations so that ::as a user you get a "reputation." People who falsely report ::spam eventually ::will just get ignored.) :: ::Now me, I'd suggest that we as Exchange admins lobby ::Cloudmark to develop a ::server-side, NT-based version of SpamNet with the possibility for ::client-side nominations. I've already emailed them about this ::and they say ::that their plans are indefinite. But if they see a market for ::it I suspect ::they will go in that direction. :: ::If you are comfortable with un*ces, go to ::http://razor.sourceforge.net/ to ::check out the package. It's quite nice. I am also an advocate ::of SpamNet on ::the client side (http://www.cloudmark.com/). :: ::Cheers all, :: ::-- ::be - MOS :: ::I want the presidency so bad I can already taste the hors d'oeuvres. :: :: ::> -----Original Message----- ::> From: Reiss, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ::> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:57 PM ::> To: Exchange Discussions ::> Subject: RE: Brightmail ::> ::> ::> Actually, we are researching spam prevention products right ::> now and have ::> found that in fact there are _not_ a lot of such products ::> (i.e. products ::> that work the way Abby describes below, which also happens to ::> be the way we ::> are trying to accomplish this). There are are a lot of ::> products that try to ::> solve the spam problem, but few to none work in this way ::> (which seems like ::> the proper way to work in an enterprise environment). ::> ::> I do have a question for people using client-side software: ::> what happens ::> when the user doesn't leave outlook open? Doesn't that ::mean that mail ::> received while outlook is closed will not be filtered? ::> ::> One problem with server-side software is that (I think) the ::> admins will have ::> to maintain whitelists rather than the users, which is annoying. ::> ::> There is a lot of room for improvement in this software space. ::> ::> Peter ::> ::> -----Original Message----- ::> From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ::> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:44 PM ::> To: Exchange Discussions ::> Subject: RE: Brightmail ::> ::> ::> There are a lot of such products. Google is your friend. ::> ::> I wonder if Brightmail has anything to do with recent Hotmail ::> not so hot ::> performance. ::> ::> -----Original Message----- ::> From: ITS.Teams.TNT.Mailing-Lists.MailingList ::> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ::> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:37 PM ::> To: Exchange Discussions ::> Subject: Brightmail ::> ::> ::> We're currently investigating anti-spam products and are ::particularly ::> interested in any products that allow the end user the ::> ability to have some ::> control over what is considered spam and what is not. ::> Ideally, we'd like a ::> product that places suspected spam into a separate folder within the ::> clients' mailboxes where they can then deal with it themselves. In ::> addition, we'd like for this to be a completely server-based ::> solution. I ::> know some products allow you to append a phrase to the ::> subject of suspected ::> spam messages so that users can then set up rules in Outlook ::> to move those ::> messages to a folder, but we'd prefer to have this happen ::> automatically ::> (without user intervention). The only product I've seen so ::> far that can do ::> this is Brightmail. Is anyone using Brightmail for Exchange? ::> Are there any ::> other products out there that would accomplish our goals? ::> We're running ::> Exchange 2000 SP2 and have about 2000 users. ::> ::> Thanks, ::> ::> Abby ::> ::> _________________________________________________________________ ::> List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm ::> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp ::> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ::> Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ::> :: ::_________________________________________________________________ ::List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm ::Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp ::To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ::Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
