>> http://www.snertsoft.com/smtp/smtpf/
>Okay, this link wasn't available to me. I googled the term you >provided and only found the FLS site. They had no links to this >data. Possible. > Next time you want to suggest that someone didn't research, you > should be explicit with your links. Up to this point in time I tried to be very nice. Not sure I will be any longer. At least try to follow your own thread. There is one person who started pointing fingers and suggested that the rest of the world is not doing research. Unless I am missing a lot of mails this person was/is you. You could not find the information, ok. Granted. You asked and got the pointer from me. However, not finding the necessary detailed information you jumped to conclusions and claimed that BarricadeMX was not able to do things. Note the difference: I (and others) say things like "I can find no information on MailChannels site indicating that they do xyz." You say "BarricadeMX is not able to do xyz." Clear now? Probably not I am afraid. Funny: Now that you have the information proving you are wrong you do not say so. Interesting move. > As afar as the slowdown is concerned, there aren't false positives. That is true in theory. Maybe you define false positives differently than others. There are tons of damn stupid MTAs out there (and stupid e-mail admins as well) that are not able to communicate according to the RFCs. These MTAs sometimes are not able to deliver mail into tarpitting/slowdown systems. Technically that is not a false positive. In reality a perfectly valid mail is not able to be delivered. Mangers tend to think of those as false positives. Saying slowdown does never under any circumstances cause false positives is plain wrong. Moreover you yourself keep pointing out that they are not only slowing down and tarpitting. So there are other techniques (e.g. their reputation system) that can cause false positives. Oh and thanks for not answering my backscatter problem. No answer sometimes is an answer. :-) > Read the text! Which one? I was kind enough to provide the links you asked for. Return the favour: What text on their website will enlighten me and tell me exactly (!) what they are doing so I can judge their efforts without having to try it? > People: maybe. I did not do so. So if you want to accuse them, go > ahead but leave me out of this loop. Please provide a link which > describes what exactly they are doing. The things I could find > justify "peoples" statements a bit since most of what I read can > indeed be done with standard MTAs. Then they use a reputation > network (in the commercial version only?) so they do not have to do > the interesting tests themselve on the box. If I failed to see the > magic of the product please enlighten me and please apologize. > Apologize for what? Oh my god. Where to start? For starters: - Your tone? - Your accusation that I and others are not doing any sort of research? > The top-level links on the website provided the > Information you claim isn't there. You asked and got the detailed information. What else do you want? All I am saying is: Do not jump to conclusions and tell me that a product (in this case BarricadeMX) does not have specific features. Say "could not find the information". Do not say "cannot do xyz". >> I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me >> to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP >> sessions. I can't find it. So I provided the link. This means you accept my accusation? Fine. > Your memory wasn't laid out to anyone else. Lacking your memory in my > search pool, I used Google. Even Google might have pointed out the site btw. But that is beside the point and I agree they could make the documentation more easily available. > I'm tired of wasting time with this pointless conversation. Agreed. > Just stop > making authoritative statements about products you haven't researched. Strange. I thought I keep telling you exactly this! I did do research. I keep asking questions you do not answer. I say "probably is not able to" (not authoritative) while you make false authoritative statements. You really do not see this, do you? Let's stop this here before it unnecessarily get's messy. You believe in MailChannel, I do not (maybe some more detailed information will convince me). That's fine. Everybody is free to use whatever we like. Cheer up and enjoy the day. Regards, JP
