Ultimate anti-spam guide: 11 products tested


Contents
Introduction
 BitDefender
 Clearswift
 CA eTrust
 GFI
 IronPort
 MailGuard
 McAfee
 MessageLabs
 NetIQ
 Network Box
 Symantec Brightmail
 Editor's Choice
 About RMIT
 How we tested
Clearswift MIMEsweeper for SMTP 5.0

MimeSweeper is another of the software applications that were submitted for this review.

The installation was potentially the most difficult of all the products reviewed here, possibly due to the level of complexity, features, and scalability built into the MimeSweeper product.

We say potentially the most difficult because the development team at Clearswift have certainly done their homework on this one and the installation routine virtually takes the installer step-by-step through the whole setup phase with a minimum of fuss.

And when you see how many third-party applications, plugins, and basic requirements this application requires to run you will be amazed.

Firstly the .NET framework from Microsoft needs to be installed, this is bundled with the MimeSweeper distribution, then the installer scans the system for missing components, on our machine it found that we had not installed MSMQ (Microsoft Mailer Queue) and that there was no ASPNET user in our Active Directory.

The first one was a no-brainer -- just install MSMQ from the 2000 Server disc, but the ASPNET user nearly stumped us as technically, it is supposed to be installed when ASP is installed with IIS, however Clearswift knew there would be people like us trying to bend the rules and install our Server O/S, Active Directory, Exchange, and anti-spam apps all on the same machine despite the security risks associated with having AD on a relatively publicly accessible machines -- all good security administrators and the fellows at Clearswift will tell you this is definitely a no-no.

However, seeing this machine would be up for only a matter of hours in a test environment we wanted to plough ahead, and when we delved into the readily available linked help pages, the application pointed us in exactly the right direction (to a Microsoft Knowledge Base document detailing this exact issue and pointing out in no uncertain terms the potential risks and hazards associated with putting all our precious eggs in one basket).

Once we followed the Microsoft document through the steps to create a secure-as-possible ASPNET user on the machine and clicked refresh on the "required components" section of the MimeSweeper installer, the system was rechecked and we were able to continue with the install. No less than four more add-ins were required after this, thankfully all included with the distribution. These were MDAC v2.8, MSDE 2000 SP3, .NET v1.1 SP1, and Microsoft Visual J .NET 1.1.

Again the installation manager for each of these was nothing short of brilliant and after a required reboot the rest of the actual MimeSweeper installation could be completed, included in this was a wizard which set up most of the initial configuration of the system for us. Finally a last reboot and we were good to go.

Administration is via four centres, these are centrally managed via one main interface. Overall the administration is very well laid out, easy to use, and extremely well documented.

At the end of the day, one should only have to install an application of this caliber once or twice in the enterprise to cover most SMTP mail servers, therefore while we harped on a bit about the installation routine involved it was mostly an exercise in pointing out how if the installation routines and installer applications were not as well designed as they were it really could be a complete nightmare. It goes to prove that the engineers at Clearswift have really got a grasp on their art. Turning something that could be so potentially horrendous into a usable form really deserves some recognition.

Click to enlarge
Product MIMEsweeper for SMTP 5.0
Price AU$3000 for 50 users
Vendor Clearswift
Phone 02 9424 1200
Web www.clearswift.com.au
 
Interoperability
Works with any mail server.
Futureproofing
Very good range of features provided and good reporting.
ROI
Very well priced.
Service
A little light on warranty (90 days/30 days) when compared with other anti-spam vendor warranties.
Rating ½

Continued ...

< Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next >

Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!

Advertisement

Print feature brought to you by Hewlett Packard

Talkback 111 comments

  1. Why not just use the 300 products for Linux? Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Why not just use the 300 products for Linux?

  2. I would have liked to see a review on Sophos PureMessage Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    I would have liked to see a review on Sophos PureMessage

  3. You guys don't cover Spamassassin or any Open Source anti-spam technologies. Why not? Spamassassin was fully functional several years ago, before any of the other 11 products existed. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    You guys don't cover Spamassassin or any Open Source
    anti-spam technologies. Why not?

    Spamassassin was fully functional several years ago, before any of the other 11 products existed.

  4. What happened to Open Source solutions like SpamAssassin? Boo to payed reviews. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    What happened to Open Source solutions like SpamAssassin? Boo to payed reviews.

  5. One word, SpamAssassin. http://spamassassin.apache.org/ Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    One word, SpamAssassin. http://spamassassin.apache.org/

  6. Where's SpamAssassin? Where's MailScanner? Where's ANY free and open source anti-spam product? How can this be called "ultimate anti-spam guide" when leading non-commercial solutions are excluded? Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Where's SpamAssassin?
    Where's MailScanner?
    Where's ANY free and open source anti-spam product?

    How can this be called "ultimate anti-spam guide" when leading non-commercial solutions are excluded?

  7. no open source antispam products? how useless Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    no open source antispam products? how useless

  8. amazing how could write a review about anti-spam without the leader : spamassassin !!!! just because they didn't pay you for that ! pathetic Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    amazing

    how could write a review about anti-spam without the leader : spamassassin !!!!

    just because they didn't pay you for that !

    pathetic

  9. Disappointily, it doesn't mention any of the Open Source anti-spam products. A very incomplete review. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Disappointily, it doesn't mention any of the
    Open Source anti-spam products.
    A very incomplete review.

  10. As I'm sure you've been told by hundreds others, this review misses several open-source products which apparently don't advertise on your server... =b Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    As I'm sure you've been told by hundreds others, this review misses several open-source products which apparently don't advertise on your server... =b

  11. Any response to this thread? Several good alternative products are discussed at /. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/06/2330204&tid=111&tid=218 Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Any response to this thread? Several good alternative products are discussed at /.

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/06/2330204&tid=111&tid=218

  12. Is this a joke? You show the minor players rather than the majors. Spamassassin? SpamBayes? This review is useless. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Is this a joke? You show the minor players rather than the majors. Spamassassin? SpamBayes? This review is useless.

  13. hrm.. Looks like all these products fail miserably when compared to http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ which I run on my mail server. -Dirtbasg Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    hrm.. Looks like all these products fail miserably when compared to http://crm114.sourceforge.net/
    which I run on my mail server.

    -Dirtbasg

  14. Why bother "reviewing" products when you don't actually run spam archives through the filters to test their effectiveness? That's like saying "I'd buy this BMW over the Mercedes because it's red!" Totally useless review. Lo Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Why bother "reviewing" products when you don't actually run spam archives through the filters to test their effectiveness? That's like saying "I'd buy this BMW over the Mercedes because it's red!"

    Totally useless review. Lots of popular (and effective) anti-spam products are not even reviewed here. The point of this article is to review spam solutions for users that don't know much about the subject. The author of the article is not supposed to be included in that group.

  15. A review of anti-spam products with no test of their effectiveness is worthless. I don't care how pretty the GUI is if it drops legitimate mail or doesn't catch a majority of the spam. How about a comparison of how these products actually WORK? While you' Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    A review of anti-spam products with no test of their effectiveness is worthless. I don't care how pretty the GUI is if it drops legitimate mail or doesn't catch a majority of the spam. How about a comparison of how these products actually WORK? While you're at it, throw in Spamassassin for comparison; I've found it to be exceedingly effective.

  16. well, I am sure that you realize the article was slashdotted but I must point out some huge gaps. 80% of mail is served out of a unix based system. Wil may MTA choices why not cover some of the best options that actaully get used by people who know what Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    well, I am sure that you realize the article was slashdotted but I must point out some huge gaps. 80% of mail is served out of a unix based system. Wil may MTA choices why not cover some of the best options that actaully get used by people who know what they are doing. My favorite in postfix and the huge spamassign project. But I guess I wont be seeing any Apache foundation banners on ZdNet huh..

  17. Some "ultimate anti-spam guide"! Did you forget some of the really nice open source anti-spam solutions? Considering that so many commercial solutions are based in-part (if not completely) on those solutions, wouldn't it make more sense to inc Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Some "ultimate anti-spam guide"! Did you forget some of the really nice open source anti-spam solutions? Considering that so many commercial solutions are based in-part (if not completely) on those solutions, wouldn't it make more sense to include products like Spamassassin and DSpam in your guide? Would you consider doing an "Ultimate Web Server Guide" and neglect to include Apache? I hope not.

  18. Out of curiosity, why did you not include the Mailgate product from Tumbleweed? We have been using it at Finisar for over a year now with AMAZING results. Just wanted to know why they weren't included. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Out of curiosity, why did you not include the Mailgate product from Tumbleweed?

    We have been using it at Finisar for over a year now with AMAZING results.

    Just wanted to know why they weren't included.

  19. Should be titled: Ultimate anti-spam software advertisement. Please, don't try to claim your blatent advertisements as actual journalism like we couldn't tell the difference. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Should be titled:

    Ultimate anti-spam software advertisement. Please, don't try to claim your blatent advertisements as actual journalism like we couldn't tell the difference.

  20. it sucked, that looked like an AD Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    it sucked, that looked like an AD

  21. What is the point of your review if you do not actually test the products' performance? Why would any IT manager spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars to license software when they do not know if it will actually work? How do you determine Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    What is the point of your review if you do not actually test the products' performance? Why would any IT manager spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars to license software when they do not know if it will actually work?

    How do you determine ROI? Wouldn't that require knowing how well the product works at reducing spam?

  22. Where are all the open source products? Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Where are all the open source products?

  23. Interesting article, but it would be interesting to see some open source solutions covered, like SpamBayes or Spam Assassin. Also, for those interested, Message Labs costs $1.00 per user per month. It's not hard to find that out. All one needs t Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Interesting article, but it would be interesting to see some open source solutions covered, like SpamBayes or Spam Assassin.

    Also, for those interested, Message Labs costs $1.00 per user per month. It's not hard to find that out. All one needs to do is ask them.

    One other product that I really like that would be cool to see reviewed is AVG from grisoft.

  24. SpamAssassin, guys, that's the elephant-sized fly you've missed. I bet you've been told about that already, but nevertheless find it useful to reiterate: you MUST have reviewed SpamAssassin. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    SpamAssassin, guys, that's the elephant-sized fly you've missed.
    I bet you've been told about that already, but nevertheless find it useful to reiterate: you MUST have reviewed SpamAssassin.

  25. I was reading your Ultimate anti-spam guide (http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software/0,39023769,39172027,00.htm) recently and noticed some omissions. The ommissions are the following: 1) Lack of effectiveness testing of the products reviewed Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    I was reading your Ultimate anti-spam guide (http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software/0,39023769,39172027,00.htm) recently and noticed some omissions. The ommissions are the following:

    1) Lack of effectiveness testing of the products reviewed
    2) Lack of mention of SpamBayes which integrates with Outlook (free and available here http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/windows.html)
    3) Lack of mention of mail clients with integrated spam detection (such as Netscape, Thunderbird thou if this was outside of the scope and this guide was targeted solely at client plug-ins then perhaps mentioning that products with integrated detection are not mentioned in the analysis but that they are out there.

    Hopefully these comments will be useful in helping refine the review and future review.

    Thanks.

  26. This review is highly biased. What about Mozilla Thunderbird for the client side? What about Spamassassin for the server side? What about FairUCE? This is NOT the ultimate anti-spam guide! At most it is just a spam guide. It is missing a lot of the big gu Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    This review is highly biased. What about Mozilla Thunderbird for the client side? What about Spamassassin for the server side? What about FairUCE? This is NOT the ultimate anti-spam guide! At most it is just a spam guide. It is missing a lot of the big guns!!!! Waste of time reading this review.

    To add, it appears that RMIT is not very good at IT/Computer Science. Seems that I cannot rely on their test labs results and this report demonstrates this. They do not discuss the effectiveness of any of the products! Pretty sad.

  27. What kind of "review" is this? You looked at the box and the screenshots? What about how many spams were filtered, user configuration etc. This is the lamest review ZDNet has had in a long long time. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    What kind of "review" is this? You looked at the box and the screenshots?
    What about how many spams were filtered, user configuration etc.

    This is the lamest review ZDNet has had in a long long time.

  28. It would have been nice if you mentioned their effectiveness, otherwise what is the point? Not to appease advertisers I hope. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    It would have been nice if you mentioned their effectiveness, otherwise what is the point?

    Not to appease advertisers I hope.

  29. good work leaving out all the open source solutions ! Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    good work leaving out all the open source solutions !

  30. I wish that SpamAssassin has also been included. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    I wish that SpamAssassin has also been included.

  31. thanks for leaving out one of the most widely used spam filters, Spam Assassin Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    thanks for leaving out one of the most widely used spam filters, Spam Assassin

  32. These products are nice and all, but there are other products on the market that are free, and support multiple OSs and I guarantee you are as good, if not better than the comercial products. You should evaluate POPFile at http://popfile.sourcef Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    These products are nice and all, but there are other products on the market that are free, and support multiple OSs and I guarantee you are as good, if not better than the comercial products.

    You should evaluate POPFile at http://popfile.sourceforge.net/. It's It's free, open source, multi-platform, runs on perl and uses Bayesian.

    I hope to see you review this ASAP.

    Regards,

    Donald Polak

  33. What kind of article is this... no ratings on how many false positives/negatives each product gets? USELESS! Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    What kind of article is this... no ratings on how many false positives/negatives each product gets?

    USELESS!

  34. Your article, frankly, sucked since it didn't touch on two of the more common (and free) open source spam filtering products such as Spambayes (which in my opinion blows any commercial offering away completely) and Spamassasin. Oh wait, they don Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Your article, frankly, sucked since it didn't touch on two of the more common (and free) open source spam filtering products such as Spambayes (which in my opinion blows any commercial offering away completely) and Spamassasin.

    Oh wait, they don't advertise on ZDNet... that probably explains it.

  35. What about spam assassin? We've been using it and it rocks with 1,000+ users Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    What about spam assassin? We've been using it and it rocks with 1,000+ users

  36. This sucked. Very little review. I thought you were going to actually test the product. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    This sucked. Very little review. I thought you were going to actually test the product.

  37. It appears that a serious flaw in this article is it's failure to look at any Open Source projects like SpamAssassin. I'm a Network Administrator for a large corporation (>$1.6B) that uses SpamAssassin and we're very happy with it. Just because the A Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    It appears that a serious flaw in this article is it's failure to look at any Open Source projects like SpamAssassin. I'm a Network Administrator for a large corporation (>$1.6B) that uses SpamAssassin and we're very happy with it. Just because the Apache Foundation can't afford to send test kits doesn't mean that you can't review something that is freely available for download.

  38. The article sucked, guys. Like maybe it was written by a 3rd grader with little experience on the subject. Keep up with the advertising; it's working great. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    The article sucked, guys. Like maybe it was written by a 3rd grader with little experience on the subject. Keep up with the advertising; it's working great.

  39. Your evaluation is ok, but nowhere do you mention the EFFECTIVENESS of each anti-spam product. How reliable are they ? What are their false-positive/false-negative ratios ? If my CEO came to me and told me to implement an anti-spam solution, a Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Your evaluation is ok, but nowhere do you mention the EFFECTIVENESS of each anti-spam product. How reliable are they ? What are their false-positive/false-negative ratios ?

    If my CEO came to me and told me to implement an anti-spam solution, and I went back to him a week later, telling him that I chose the cheapest, easiest-to-install product, but didn't check to see how much spam actually got through (and, more importantly, how many genuine emails were filtered), I'd probably lose my job !!!

    By the way, there a lot of really good free open-source anti-spam products out there. We use a combination of Spamassassin and ClamAV here where I work, and I think they are every bit as effective as a commercial solution (if not more so). Perhaps you should consider these in a subsequent evaluation, along with a test of effectiveness using a test corpus of spam and non-spam emails.

  40. Useless article. Doesn't even include SpamAssassin... Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Useless article. Doesn't even include SpamAssassin...

  41. Seems you forgot to review the effectiveness of the different products - quite possibly the worst review I've ever read. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Seems you forgot to review the effectiveness of the different products - quite possibly the worst review I've ever read.

  42. How about FREE POPFile? http://getpopfile.org/ Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    How about FREE POPFile?
    http://getpopfile.org/

  43. I'm very disappointed that you didn't test some of the best known SPAM filters in the world. The Open Source ones. Spam Assassin for example is a top level Apache product and is taken seriously by a number of large companies. There are a couple of others Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    I'm very disappointed that you didn't test some of the best known SPAM filters in the world. The Open Source ones. Spam Assassin for example is a top level Apache product and is taken seriously by a number of large companies. There are a couple of others that might make it on the list as well. I say that because they should be above some of your commercial offerings given their popularity.

  44. You forgot one of the best appliances out there -- the Barracuda Networks stuff. www.barracudanetworks.com. Think "IronPort at about a third of the price". I've been using one, it's VERY good and well worth the money. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    You forgot one of the best appliances out there -- the Barracuda Networks stuff. www.barracudanetworks.com. Think "IronPort at about a third of the price". I've been using one, it's VERY good and well worth the money.

  45. Alright, I know you're getting a ton of messages about this, so I'm not going to totally flame you about not using any open source solutions or products and blah blah blah. I would have liked though to have seen some more numbers though from the Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Alright, I know you're getting a ton of messages about this, so I'm not going to totally flame you about not using any open source solutions or products and blah blah blah.

    I would have liked though to have seen some more numbers though from the actual USE of the products you tested. I have seen enough articles like this where they are setup, configured, and thats it. I would very much like to see more.

    Also, I would honestly like to see something about an opensource solution, such as SpamAssain. My corporation uses it, and we have been met with sucess that I doubt could be duplicated very easily. We have had a minimum of 75% reduction in spam in our user's e-mail with just some very simple, very light setup on one of our aging Sun SPARC systems that was destined for replacement, and debating on renewing support. Now that it has a home doing this, we keep it around and on support.

    I would very much encourage you anyways to please include some more information on these systems, and please also consider offering more open source solutions.
    Thank you.
    Erik Helgestad
    System Administrator
    Commericial Communications Inc.

  46. No open source software reviewed? It performs better than any of these commercial solutions. But, the little problem is that since they don't advertise with ZDNet, they don't get reviewed. It is ALWAYS about money. Someone pl Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    No open source software reviewed? It performs better than any of these commercial solutions.

    But, the little problem is that since they don't advertise with ZDNet, they don't get reviewed.

    It is ALWAYS about money.

    Someone please review spambayes, spamassassin, dspam and others.

  47. Worthless review. All spam filters are not created equal. Some have a MUCH higher accuracy rate than others. Why are SpamAssassin, POPfile, and SpamBayes (to mention a few) not in this ultimate review? Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Worthless review.
    All spam filters are not created equal. Some have a MUCH higher accuracy rate than others.
    Why are SpamAssassin, POPfile, and SpamBayes (to mention a few) not in this ultimate review?

  48. Thank you for an up-to-date review on this market. However, as I actually work as a systems ****yst of an ISP, I do wonder why Spam********in and other products like it were not even mentioned? Many of them are among the best in performance, and Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Thank you for an up-to-date review on this market.

    However, as I actually work as a systems ****yst of an ISP, I do wonder why Spam********in and other products like it were not even mentioned? Many of them are among the best in performance, and being free their ROI is unbeatable.

    Please, do not include only products whose manufacturers pay for advertisement. It does jeopardize the quality of your articles.

  49. Would have been great to test their functionality. Ease of installation and interface is great. But many antispam products require serious configuration and administration to either block spam, or allow emails that are incorrectly being detected. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Would have been great to test their functionality. Ease of installation and interface is great. But many antispam products require serious configuration and administration to either block spam, or allow emails that are incorrectly being detected.

  50. Sophos PureMessage seems to be the best technical solution at the moment. Why was it omitted? Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Sophos PureMessage seems to be the best technical solution at the moment. Why was it omitted?

  51. Notably absent from the review is Spam********in. http://spam********in.apache.org/ I think if you tested it, you would find that it works as well if not better then the tested software. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Notably absent from the review is Spam********in.

    http://spam********in.apache.org/

    I think if you tested it, you would find that it works as well if not better then the tested software.

  52. Um did anyone test these products to see if they stopped spam, filtered real mail, or worked at all? I hope you don't review anti-virus software this way. This was not a review it was a produce placement ad. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Um did anyone test these products to see if they stopped spam, filtered real mail, or worked at all?

    I hope you don't review anti-virus software this way.

    This was not a review it was a produce placement ad.

  53. "Fluff anti-spam filler, cursory glance at 11 products" would have been a better title. Any reasonable definition of "guide" would actually include testing of the products to see which ones work better than others, rather tha Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    "Fluff anti-spam filler, cursory glance at 11 products" would have been a better title.

    Any reasonable definition of "guide" would actually include testing of the products to see which ones work better than others, rather than a cursory overview of how they appear.

    Any reasonable expection of "ultimate" would at least include a review of the products which are widely used and widely reputed to be the best, most notably Spam********in version 3.

  54. Pretty good review, no OSS solutions, pretty much who advertises with you. Flawed review, you cant say spam ********in isnt heard of. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Pretty good review, no OSS solutions, pretty much who advertises with you. Flawed review, you cant say spam ********in isnt heard of.

  55. Where is the best anti-spam software ever : SPAM********IN ? Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Where is the best anti-spam software ever : SPAM********IN ?

  56. Spam********in and DSpam are quite good open-source alternatives. No need for any payed commercial products in this "Ultimate" scope. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Spam********in and DSpam are quite good open-source alternatives. No need for any payed commercial products in this "Ultimate" scope.

  57. How come you didn't test Spam********in ? Is it true that companies pay you to get their products into tests ? Most commonly buying adds in your magazines. It is really sad to see that the magazine I pay for is just a paid advertisement! Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    How come you didn't test Spam********in ?
    Is it true that companies pay you to get their products into tests ? Most commonly buying adds in your magazines. It is really sad to see that the magazine I pay for is just a paid advertisement!

  58. How come you didn't test Spam********in ? Is it true that companies pay you to get their products into tests ? Most commonly buying adds in your magazines. It is really sad to see that the magazine I pay for is just a paid advertisement! Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    How come you didn't test Spam********in ?
    Is it true that companies pay you to get their products into tests ? Most commonly buying adds in your magazines. It is really sad to see that the magazine I pay for is just a paid advertisement!

  59. How come you didn't test Spam********in ? Is it true that companies pay you to get their products into tests ? Most commonly buying adds in your magazines. It is really sad to see that the magazine I pay for is just a paid advertisement! Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    How come you didn't test Spam********in ?
    Is it true that companies pay you to get their products into tests ? Most commonly buying adds in your magazines. It is really sad to see that the magazine I pay for is just a paid advertisement!

  60. This article cannot be the "Ultimate" anti-spam guide if it ignores all the very, very good open source products which would blow away many of the products featured in your article. Of specific interest to you should be Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    This article cannot be the "Ultimate" anti-spam
    guide if it ignores all the very, very good open
    source products which would blow away many of the
    products featured in your article.

    Of specific interest to you should be Spam********in
    which is close to the top of the heap. I'd put
    Spam********in against any of the products mentioned
    in this article.

  61. Next time test dspam and spam********in! Also, why do I HAVE to fill in location and occupation? Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Next time test dspam and spam********in! Also, why do I HAVE to fill in location and occupation?

  62. poor review, guys. you only considered products that advertise on your site...sad. ps. the vast majority of /.'rs have adblock (or similiar) installed ... so even though you were /.'ed, you won't be seeing the expected revenues. even more s Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    poor review, guys. you only considered products that advertise on your site...sad.

    ps. the vast majority of /.'rs have adblock (or similiar) installed ... so even though you were /.'ed, you won't be seeing the expected revenues.
    even more sad!

  63. In all tests, Spam****asin is the Best. So your test has no value. But it's not a surprise on ZDNet. You words are : "Where Technology Means Business" The fact is that the best technology (easy and effective) is offently not the best b Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    In all tests, Spam****asin is the Best. So your test has no value. But it's not a surprise on ZDNet.
    You words are : "Where Technology Means Business"
    The fact is that the best technology (easy and effective) is offently not the best business.
    It should be : "Where Technology Means Solutions"
    And it will be, if you want or not.

  64. you forgot spamprobe. It filters 99.9% of the spam and costs no more than occasionally reading the manual by a unix-geek who can do a lot of other usefull cost-saving things for your organisation. And all you have to endure is that he won't keep his mouth Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    you forgot spamprobe. It filters 99.9% of the spam and costs no more than occasionally reading the manual by a unix-geek who can do a lot of other usefull cost-saving things for your organisation. And all you have to endure is that he won't keep his mouth shut when he thinks something.

    You guys are so oversensitive to social engineering by salesmen. And you refuse to learn new things or actually read a manual. You will be robbed blind by these expert salesmen!

  65. the glaring ommission would be? Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    the glaring ommission would be?

  66. What about the major spam filters that the internet service providers use? There are several free spam filters. Both for the mail clients and the mail servers. Server: http://spam********in.apache.org/ http://dspam.nuclearelephan Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    What about the major spam filters that the internet service providers use?
    There are several free spam filters. Both for the mail clients and the mail servers.

    Server:
    http://spam********in.apache.org/
    http://dspam.nuclearelephant.com/

    Client:
    http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/
    " Our tools ****yze your e-mail and identify those that are most likely to be junk. You can automatically have your junk mail deleted or you can put it in a folder you specify, just in case you like reading junk mail."

    http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/evolution.html
    "integration with Spam********in enables client-side junk-mail filtering".

    Thunderbird is for several operating systems. Evolution is for *nix operating systems like Linux, *BSD, Solaris, etc..

    I am running all these spamfilters myself everyday. They just works.

    -martin

  67. You're doing a *disservice* to your readers. Most of them are non-advanced sysadmins, or "advanced users". When they read your article they're going to think that these are the best products to fight spam. You are hiding from them the facts t Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    You're doing a *disservice* to your readers. Most of them are non-advanced sysadmins, or "advanced users". When they read your article they're going to think that these are the best products to fight spam. You are hiding from them the facts that any competent sysadmin knows, that the leading Free Software products (Spam********in, SpamBayes, etc) beat the crap out of all these so-called solutions.

    As for the real solution, any competent sysadmin knows that filtering at the *server*, and before the email even gets swallowed, is really the best first line of defense. Yes, I'm talking judiciously used RBLs, greylisting, and even tarpitting. Then use Spam ****asin after that.

    Forget any of this proprietary stuff, it's still years ahead of the competition (Free Soft).

  68. Spam********in is ultimate, poor review. Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    Spam********in is ultimate, poor review.

  69. I'm suprised and in the meantime also astonished to see that there are no Open Source initiatives included in this review.... - DSPAM - Spam********in - CRM114 are just a few of very good and very clever programs used by admi Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    I'm suprised and in the meantime also astonished to see that there are no Open Source initiatives included in this review....

    - DSPAM
    - Spam********in
    - CRM114

    are just a few of very good and very clever programs used by administrators all over the world. Not to exclude the home-users wich have set these tools up to prevent spam from messing their inboxes up.

    I thought that ZDNet could do a better job than just list some commercial crap without going into depth for the sake of a good anti-spam war.

  70. This articles is completelly focused on pay/no free solutions and MS platform. Do you KNOW that 80% or more of ALL the internet email traffic goes through *NIX servers? If you don't, maybe you are on the wrong business, since ALL IT professionals known th Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    This articles is completelly focused on pay/no free solutions and MS platform. Do you KNOW that 80% or more of ALL the internet email traffic goes through *NIX servers? If you don't, maybe you are on the wrong business, since ALL IT professionals known that.

  71. You left out the best anti spam tool of all - - POPFILE Anonymous -- 08/12/04

    You left out the best anti spam tool of all - - POPFILE

  72. What about the best (and free) solution; Spam********in? Anonymous -- 08/12/04

    What about the best (and free) solution; Spam********in?