I enabled it. And as noted it seemed remarkably ineffective, particularly
as compared to SpamAssassin. I typically get 200 to 225 spams a day. Of
this a few get through with SpamAssassin because I do not use SURBL. So
about 3 or 4 a day sneak through. (It would be more without my custom
jd_mangy_mo
At 06:06 PM 12/1/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think Earthlink uses Brightmail. If that is so then Brightmail
>statistics are VERY bad. I doubt I had any false alarms - lost email.
>But it only got about 75% or less of the spam. I used it while on the
>road the last two weeks. I might comment t
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:37:53 -0800, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think Earthlink uses Brightmail. If that is so then Brightmail
>statistics are VERY bad. I doubt I had any false alarms - lost email.
>But it only got about 75% or less of the spam. I used it while on the
>road the last two w
Thanks everyone for your useful and informative input. We are currently
re-evaluating our email services and your feedback has been a great
help.
Richard
---
This email from dns has been validated by dnsMSS Managed Email Security and is
free from
I think Earthlink uses Brightmail. If that is so then Brightmail
statistics are VERY bad. I doubt I had any false alarms - lost email.
But it only got about 75% or less of the spam. I used it while on the
road the last two weeks. I might comment that I was very unimpressed.
{^_^}
- Original Me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler wrote:
| At 03:39 PM 11/30/2004, Bob Amen wrote:
|
|> Thank you for that very well written and helpful explanation! Now,
|> do you have a script that computes the test values from a SA log file
|> that you'd care to share?
|
|
| You can
At 03:39 PM 11/30/2004, Bob Amen wrote:
Thank you for that very well written and helpful explanation! Now, do
you have a script that computes the test values from a SA log file that
you'd care to share?
You can't measure any of those performance metrics from logfiles alone..
there's no way t
Bob Amen wrote:
Robert LeBlanc wrote:
The closest thing to a "standard" way of measuring a spam filter's
effectiveness is the scientific model that medical researchers use for
diagnostic tests. Even so, there are five separate tests, not just one:
Thank you for that very well written and helpf
Robert LeBlanc wrote:
The closest thing to a "standard" way of measuring a spam filter's
effectiveness is the scientific model that medical researchers use for
diagnostic tests. Even so, there are five separate tests, not just one:
Thank you for that very well written and helpful explanation! N
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gray, Richard wrote:
| Can anyone shed any light on how Brightmail achieves the rather
| impressive statistics it is quoting, or do you think it is just smoke
| and mirrors?
The first thing to note about performance statistics with regard to a
spam filt
Oddly enough, we went up head-to-head with our SpamAssassin solution
against Brightmail three times in a row and won the customer every time.
This is running 2.64. We have a single 8-way 3500, but we'll probably be
upgrading that soon.
David.
-
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Damian Mendoza wrote:
We
We sell BrightMail to customers that want a "Commercial"
antispam solution and have deep pockets to pay a yearly subscription. We build
SA based solutions (http://www.spamgate.us)
for customers that want a "low-cost" antispam solution.
Regards,
Damian
From: Gray, Richard
[mailto:[E
Richard, my day job is tech support for Sun mail systems. I support the
integration with both SpamAssassin and Brightmail.
Both do a very good job.
Brightmail is commercial software, and is sold with a contract that
automatically updates it, often. Many customers are more comfortable
with thi
At 11:58 AM 11/30/2004, Gray, Richard wrote:
Brightmail seems to be getting a lot of good press on the SPAM front.
So I'm wondering, why do people running large mail systems choose SA over
corporate offerings. Is it cost? Is it configurability, or performance?
Can anyone shed any light on how Bri
14 matches
Mail list logo