Exchange folks ... what do you use for Spam/Junk Mail Filtering

[GCS]

Looking to see what everyone uses for Exchange (we are running SBS 2008)

Thanks

Greg

 

[Nothinman]

At work we use MXLogic to filter everything before it hits our Exchange server. Although I'm not sure how the McAfee buyout is going to affect them longterm.

 

[snikt]

I believe we are using Brightmail.

 

[GCS]

Anyone using Google Positini?

I have had several people recommend it to me lately so I thought I would ask.

Greg

 

[Binky]

spamsoap

 

[Genx87]

Postini and GFI.

 

[stlcardinals]

I've had experience with both MXLogic and Barracuda. I would recommend both. If you have a large incoming email volume, I would lean towards MXLogic just for the fact that all email would be scrubbed before it even hits your network.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Proofpoint Protection Server
we have over 10K accounts and this solution is working very well so far!

 

[DnetMHZ]

GFI Mail Essentials

 

[StormSide]

Cisco - Ironport

http://www.ironport.com/

 

[RebateMonger]

Anyone using Google Positini?

I've got a couple of clients who've used Postini for quite a while.

My biggest issue with Postini is reliability. I've seen significant mail delays (days) that were obviously caused by Postini, but Postini will never admit it.

 

[Zargon]

barracuda. I love that damn fish

 

[GCS]

Well we are pretty small about 15 email accounts total. About half of those get about 100 "useful" emails per day probably 1000 pieces of spam though.

Greg


Looks Barracuda and Cisco are appliances of course.

 

[Nothinman]

I've got a couple of clients who've used Postini for quite a while.

My biggest issue with Postini is reliability. I've seen significant mail delays (days) that were obviously caused by Postini, but Postini will never admit it.

I have yet to see or have a customer complain about MX Logic delaying their email.

We did have one instance when a customer had their Exchange server die and about an hour after that the MX Logic DR interface for reading/replying to email stopped working for them as well, but just once and that customer always seems to be the exception to every rule out there.

 

[Maldian]

I install IMF Filtering service and have GFI as a backup.

 

[Zargon]

Well we are pretty small about 15 email accounts total. About half of those get about 100 "useful" emails per day probably 1000 pieces of spam though.

Greg


Looks Barracuda and Cisco are appliances of course.

yeah probably too small to justify the costs of a barracuda!

 

[GCS]

I signed us up for MX Logic this AM. After looking around for a while the last day or 2 they seemed like a good choice and I did not read comments from anyone about delays, problems, issues, or bad support.

Cost for us about $370 per year for our 15 accounts.

Greg

 

[IndyColtsFan]

We went from an MXtreme, to a Barracuda, and now, a Cisco Ironport. Have you tried using some of the built-in features to see if that cuts down on spam? I used to run an Exchange 2007 server at home for my domain and I enabled many of those features and it dramatically cut down on spam.

 

[EricMartello]

Why don't you set up your own intermediary server running spam assassin and pass incoming mail thru it, but do not use the default config. On a corporate network (which is what I assume this is) you can set it up to score the incoming mail based on several filters, RBLs or whatever. Each "hit" the incoming mail gets on the filter would add to its score, and you'd then have a threshold which would either deliver it to a spam folder or block it outright. I'm not a fan of content-based scanners so I would put a lower weight on that, and a greater weight on the sending IP/domain reputation.

Generally:

zen.spamhaus.org
is decent in general.

cbl.abuseat.org
is more-less the free version of what spamhaus would charge you for.

bl.spamcop.net
spamcop, which is now owned by cisco and is essentially what you'd get with ironport.

There are also a shitload of smaller lists which I generally do not recommend subscribing to.

 

[Nothinman]

Why don't you set up your own intermediary server running spam assassin and pass incoming mail thru it, but do not use the default config. On a corporate network (which is what I assume this is) you can set it up to score the incoming mail based on several filters, RBLs or whatever. Each "hit" the incoming mail gets on the filter would add to its score, and you'd then have a threshold which would either deliver it to a spam folder or block it outright. I'm not a fan of content-based scanners so I would put a lower weight on that, and a greater weight on the sending IP/domain reputation.

Because letting someone like MX Logic do all of that for you is a lot more reliable and cheaper. If you spend ~3 days work on it in 1 year then it's already cost the company more than the $370/yr he said MX Logic quoted him for 15 users.

 

[BlackOmen]

Another vote for MX Logic. Plus, I like being able to restrict traffic on port 25 to their relay servers.

 

[corkyg]

Mail Washer Pro by Firetrust. Lets me see all mail in my box before downloading - and I can selectively delete any or all. It can set up blacklists for auto deletion or even bouncing back to sender.

I also use three email addresses. One open - and the other two are whitelist only - zero spam on them.

 

[EricMartello]

Because letting someone like MX Logic do all of that for you is a lot more reliable and cheaper. If you spend ~3 days work on it in 1 year then it's already cost the company more than the $370/yr he said MX Logic quoted him for 15 users.

No, not necessarily...if you hired someone specifically to set that up, then it would cost the company more, and if the person is already on the payroll then you are still paying his salary + $370 to MX Logic or whichever boxed solution you opt for - either way it costs more. The time it takes to set up a spam assassin box is easily mitigated by the fact that there is no cost to use that software. I can set up the solution I recommended in a few hours. If it's taking "days" to set up a spam assassin filter box it's time to fire your admin and replace him with someone with a little more than a DeVry "look what I can do" McDegree.

In any case, if the company is hell bent on using a prepackaged solution, I would either go with Barracuda or Ironport because I know both of them are effective at what they're intended to do. I cannot speak for MX Logic because I have not used them before.

 

[sourceninja]

It also depends on how you look at the ROI.

License for pre-packaged goods 375 per year
Time to setup 'free' solution (let's say it works out even at 375)

Now we hit year 2
License for pre-packaged goods 375 per year
Time to maintain/patch solution (unknown at this time, but when we were doing it it was about 1-3 hours from testing to production).

We had this discussion about our web portal last week. We pay thousands a year for the application that runs it now. It might take us about the same amount in salary to pay my team to replicate the functionality with 'free' tools. But year 2 will be way cheaper.

Same when we did ROI on blackboard vs moodle. Maintaining moodle has proven to be a brain dead simple exercise. We are on year 3 and basically have proven that going 'free' was the best choice.

It's not always that simple, if your guys don't know how to use the systems required to setup the 'free' solution then it could cost more overtime. I wouldn't recommend a bunch of MCSE's try to maintain and use linux servers. But when you have people experienced in using free/open source solutions you can save a lot of money.

 

[EricMartello]

Yeah it never ceases to amaze me how shortsighted many companies are when it comes to accounting and purchasing. I think the more appropriate term would be TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) which can vary based on the time that you use a particular piece of software/equipment as well as the company's actual needs. Of course, cost should not be the sole criteria for making decisions unless you are comparing identical things. For example, if you were to pay $20 for a night with a hooker, you will get a lot more for your $20 in the Philippines vs LA even though the service being performed by the hookers is the same in both situations. It's just food for thought.