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
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
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
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 weeks. I
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 that
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
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
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
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:
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!
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
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
-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't
13 matches
Mail list logo
