[unisog] Barracuda effectiveness (vs Puremessage)

Stephen John Smoogen smooge at unm.edu
Tue Jul 17 18:07:42 GMT 2007

mcclenbw at oneonta.edu wrote:
> We were actually disappointed with PureMessage performance and bought a
> Barracuda 400 to place in front of PureMessage (originally to test, but
> since we still have a contract with Sophos, we've left PureMessage for
> an added layer).  Before having the Barracuda, PureMessage couldn't
> handle the DNSBL checks quick enough that our queues would back up, and
> require manual intervention to clear.
> The Barracuda does have the DNSBL issue, and we are currently using 5
> lists:
> zen.spamhaus.org
> cbl.abuseat.org
> dnsbl.njabl.org
> list.dsbl.org
> dnsbl.ahbl.org

The one issue I have seen with the PureMessage and some other SPAM units
is that they default to using the 'free' lists that spamhaus and the
rest provide.. and if you have a large enough email list you end up
getting throttled by spamhaus (if the emails asking you to change your
SPAM DNS lookups to soemthing else). This has been our biggest issue
with PureMessage. Beyond that it drops about 92% of the incoming email
because well its definate spam.

Stephen Smoogen -- ITS/Linux Administrator
  MSC02 1520 1 University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM  87131-0001
  Phone: (505) 277-7343  Email: smooge at unm.edu
 How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
 in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

More information about the unisog mailing list