[unisog] unisog Digest, Vol 40, Issue 18
YorkJ at brcc.edu
Mon Jul 16 19:58:18 GMT 2007
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:25:41 -0700
> From: Kim Cary <Kim.Cary at pepperdine.edu>
> Subject: [unisog] Barracuda effectiveness (vs Puremessage)
> To: unisog at lists.dshield.org
> Message-ID: <9874961A-652A-43EF-BCB5-F382244E9435 at pepperdine.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> Hi all,
> We've been doing some tests and are quite disappointed with the
> Barracuda's spam catch effectiveness. We find that at the
> settings about 20% of the things that would be caught by Puremessage
> as spam, get missed by Barracuda.
> We have the Barracuda set to do the things their SE recommends. And
> now they are recommending manual tuning involving keyword lists,
> extra blacklists (beyond their own and xbl/sbl from
> spamhaus), bayes,
> We don't have 'tuning' with Puremessage. We have postgres
> maintenance :-( but not tuning.
> Anyone have recommendations for a high-catch/no-tuning setup for
> their Barracuda, before we re-crate these appliances for return?
> Dr. Kim Cary, CISSP
> Information Security Officer
> M-F 7-4 ~
About a year ago I was having the same problem with a Barracuda and
found that its DNS queries were getting blocked by router ACL's. Once I
got that fixed so DNS worked properly the catch rate improved
dramatically. It turned out the Barracuda used the SpamHaus black-list
servers, and they were some of its most effective measures.
More information about the unisog