You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by qqqq <qq...@usermail.com> on 2006/06/12 19:23:20 UTC
For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
All,
I bought a Barracuda Model 400 last October. My current setup is as follows:
Barracuda GW ---> Internal servers ---> Spamassassin server ---> Quarantine or local delivery.
Although there was a small percentage of spam being caught by adding the Barracuda, this was because
I added my own Regex rules on the Barracuda. Without my Regex rules, using their "intent" RBL, a
trained bayes, and SBL-XBL RBL, the devise gave me nothing in terms of more spam captured than
Spamassassin with SARE. In fact, I don't have concrete numbers but I am willing to put $100 and say
SA/SARE does better.
Because I am a customer, I have access to the Barracuda Networks forums. I am not the only one
unimpressed and since it's a moderated forum, all the postings I have made which have a negative
undertones, do not get posted.
OK, enough of that. I bought the server in October (8 months ago) for about $4800. This included a
years license. Well, the server has a bad drive based on their support's diagnostics. They want me
to pay $899 to have it replaced! FWIW, if you open the box yourself, it voids support.
I want to say that if your thinking of buying one of the Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall
(www.barracudanetworks.com), save your money!. I would have been better off spending about $2000
for two decent servers and running SA/SARE at the perimeter.
I hope this helps somebody else from making the same mistake.
Brian
Re: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
Posted by "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight.ie" <mi...@blacknight.ie>.
Jeff Chan wrote:
>
> Doesn't Barracuda use SpamAssassin in their boxes? If so it's
> not too surprising that it wouldn't perform much differently from
> SpamAssassin.... :-)
It's probably using an old version.... *shrug*
>
> Barracuda may not use SARE, so SARE may indeed be better.
Quite possibly
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Quality Business Hosting & Colocation
http://www.blacknight.ie/
Tel. 1850 927 280
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 59 9164239
Re: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Monday, June 12, 2006, 10:23:20 AM, qqqq qqqq wrote:
> I bought a Barracuda Model 400 last October. My current setup is as follows:
Barracuda GW --->> Internal servers ---> Spamassassin server ---> Quarantine or local delivery.
> Although there was a small percentage of spam being caught by adding the Barracuda, this was because
> I added my own Regex rules on the Barracuda. Without my Regex rules, using their "intent" RBL, a
> trained bayes, and SBL-XBL RBL, the devise gave me nothing in terms of more spam captured than
> Spamassassin with SARE. In fact, I don't have concrete numbers but I am willing to put $100 and say
> SA/SARE does better.
Doesn't Barracuda use SpamAssassin in their boxes? If so it's
not too surprising that it wouldn't perform much differently from
SpamAssassin.... :-)
Barracuda may not use SARE, so SARE may indeed be better.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
Posted by Craig White <cr...@azapple.com>.
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 19:34 -0700, jdow wrote:
> If I was feeling stinky I'd note that I do not like web administration
> tools as much as I like editing the files myself by hand doing things
> I understand from an overdose of RTFM. And I'm not a Linux guy last
> time I checked myself in front of a mirror.
>
> {^,-} But I'm not. (Besides "ix guy" is perhaps more to the point.
> I also "dabble" with FreeBSD; but, I don't use it for anything
> important yet.) (It's been a contentious day on several lists.
> Some humor was needed.)
----
You mean calling GPL License 'nonsense' wasn't your best effort of the
day?
You hurled similar bombshells on other lists?
Craig
Re: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
If I was feeling stinky I'd note that I do not like web administration
tools as much as I like editing the files myself by hand doing things
I understand from an overdose of RTFM. And I'm not a Linux guy last
time I checked myself in front of a mirror.
{^,-} But I'm not. (Besides "ix guy" is perhaps more to the point.
I also "dabble" with FreeBSD; but, I don't use it for anything
important yet.) (It's been a contentious day on several lists.
Some humor was needed.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Kennedy" <br...@cfl.rr.com>
>I took a look at them as a way to possibly go to a gui spam server because
> some of the other admins at my company are not linux gurus by any stretch,
> but these lacked some of the necessary functionality that would give me
> cause to actually pay for one. Course.. If anyone doesn't know.. Use
> webmin, it's a great alternative to doing things via command line...
> Especially if your not a linux guy like most of this list. Need a secure
> connection, just use the webmin ssl feature.
>
> :)
>
> -Brent
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L. Mark Stone [mailto:lmstone@rnome.com]
>
> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 11:41 -0600, qqqq wrote:
>> | I pretty much at this time strictly use the Barracuda as a buffer to
>> | 'tone' down traffic that would make our server drop to its knees. We
>> | are in process of getting a firewall in place and when that happens,
>> | the Barracuda will probably go bye..bye when I start building access
> lists.
>>
>> That's exactly what mine was doing. It allowed for me to run SA/SARE with
> a less beefy box.
>>
>> B
>
> Our SonicWall PRO2040 firewall does RBL checking, which was a pleasant
> surprise to us since that feature was not a decision criterium for us.
>
> But, using the RBL feature has reduced the load on our Postfix/SA box
> considerably--and for much less $$$ than a Barracuda.
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________
> A Message From... L. Mark Stone
>
> Reliable Networks of Maine, LLC
>
> "We manage your network so you can manage your business"
>
> 477 Congress Street
> Portland, ME 04101
> Tel: (207) 772-5678
> Web: http://www.rnome.com
>
> This email was sent from Reliable Networks of Maine LLC.
> It may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
> If you suspect that you were not intended to receive it, please delete it
> and notify us as soon as possible. Thank you.
>
>
RE: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
Posted by Brent Kennedy <br...@cfl.rr.com>.
I took a look at them as a way to possibly go to a gui spam server because
some of the other admins at my company are not linux gurus by any stretch,
but these lacked some of the necessary functionality that would give me
cause to actually pay for one. Course.. If anyone doesn't know.. Use
webmin, it's a great alternative to doing things via command line...
Especially if your not a linux guy like most of this list. Need a secure
connection, just use the webmin ssl feature.
:)
-Brent
-----Original Message-----
From: L. Mark Stone [mailto:lmstone@rnome.com]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 8:44 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 11:41 -0600, qqqq wrote:
> | I pretty much at this time strictly use the Barracuda as a buffer to
> | 'tone' down traffic that would make our server drop to its knees. We
> | are in process of getting a firewall in place and when that happens,
> | the Barracuda will probably go bye..bye when I start building access
lists.
>
> That's exactly what mine was doing. It allowed for me to run SA/SARE with
a less beefy box.
>
> B
Our SonicWall PRO2040 firewall does RBL checking, which was a pleasant
surprise to us since that feature was not a decision criterium for us.
But, using the RBL feature has reduced the load on our Postfix/SA box
considerably--and for much less $$$ than a Barracuda.
--
_________________________________________________________
A Message From... L. Mark Stone
Reliable Networks of Maine, LLC
"We manage your network so you can manage your business"
477 Congress Street
Portland, ME 04101
Tel: (207) 772-5678
Web: http://www.rnome.com
This email was sent from Reliable Networks of Maine LLC.
It may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
If you suspect that you were not intended to receive it, please delete it
and notify us as soon as possible. Thank you.
Re: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
Posted by "L. Mark Stone" <lm...@rnome.com>.
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 11:41 -0600, qqqq wrote:
> | I pretty much at this time strictly use the Barracuda as a buffer to 'tone' down
> | traffic that would make our server drop to its knees. We are in process
> | of getting a firewall in place and when that happens, the Barracuda will
> | probably go bye..bye when I start building access lists.
>
> That's exactly what mine was doing. It allowed for me to run SA/SARE with a less beefy box.
>
> B
Our SonicWall PRO2040 firewall does RBL checking, which was a pleasant
surprise to us since that feature was not a decision criterium for us.
But, using the RBL feature has reduced the load on our Postfix/SA box
considerably--and for much less $$$ than a Barracuda.
--
_________________________________________________________
A Message From... L. Mark Stone
Reliable Networks of Maine, LLC
"We manage your network so you can manage your business"
477 Congress Street
Portland, ME 04101
Tel: (207) 772-5678
Web: http://www.rnome.com
This email was sent from Reliable Networks of Maine LLC.
It may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
If you suspect that you were not intended to receive it, please
delete it and notify us as soon as possible. Thank you.
Re: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
Posted by qqqq <qq...@usermail.com>.
| I pretty much at this time strictly use the Barracuda as a buffer to 'tone' down
| traffic that would make our server drop to its knees. We are in process
| of getting a firewall in place and when that happens, the Barracuda will
| probably go bye..bye when I start building access lists.
That's exactly what mine was doing. It allowed for me to run SA/SARE with a less beefy box.
B
Re: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
Posted by Duane Hill <d....@yournetplus.com>.
We have a 400 as well. I don't think one can even compare SA
out-of-the-box and the Barracuda. I'm catching more Spam with the use of
SA with no rules loaded than what our Barracuda is tagging. I've taken
messages that came off the Barracuda and thew it through SA. SA scored
almost 2.5 points higher than the Barracuda in several cases. I pretty
much at this time strictly use the Barracuda as a buffer to 'tone' down
traffic that would make our server drop to its knees. We are in process
of getting a firewall in place and when that happens, the Barracuda will
probably go bye..bye when I start building access lists.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, qqqq wrote:
> All,
>
> I bought a Barracuda Model 400 last October. My current setup is as follows:
> Barracuda GW ---> Internal servers ---> Spamassassin server ---> Quarantine or local delivery.
>
> Although there was a small percentage of spam being caught by adding the Barracuda, this was because
> I added my own Regex rules on the Barracuda. Without my Regex rules, using their "intent" RBL, a
> trained bayes, and SBL-XBL RBL, the devise gave me nothing in terms of more spam captured than
> Spamassassin with SARE. In fact, I don't have concrete numbers but I am willing to put $100 and say
> SA/SARE does better.
>
> Because I am a customer, I have access to the Barracuda Networks forums. I am not the only one
> unimpressed and since it's a moderated forum, all the postings I have made which have a negative
> undertones, do not get posted.
>
> OK, enough of that. I bought the server in October (8 months ago) for about $4800. This included a
> years license. Well, the server has a bad drive based on their support's diagnostics. They want me
> to pay $899 to have it replaced! FWIW, if you open the box yourself, it voids support.
>
> I want to say that if your thinking of buying one of the Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall
> (www.barracudanetworks.com), save your money!. I would have been better off spending about $2000
> for two decent servers and running SA/SARE at the perimeter.
>
> I hope this helps somebody else from making the same mistake.
>
> Brian
>
--
"This message was sent using 100% recycled electrons."
RE: For those who are considering a Barracuda Network Device server
Posted by Greg Allen <sa...@floridacpu.com>.
>
> I hope this helps somebody else from making the same mistake.
>
> Brian
>
I looked all over the Internet about 5 years ago for the best anti-spam
software. I wanted it to be Windows-based easy to use, etc.
Well, I found the best anti-spam software and it turned out to be
SpamAssassin. It wasn't Windows based, and wasn't necessarily easy to learn
and use. But I'm glad it was created (mostly) for Linux/Unix since those
operating systems are much more robust as front end email servers, and I'm
glad I took the time to learn SA.
Any of these anti-spam vendors like Barracuda are just bad imitations of SA.
Some not as bad as others, but none are as good as SA.
Regarding Barracuda Networks... I hate their radio commercials... what BS
hype artists. They make it sound like they are better than anything
available for anti-spam and anti-virus and that you will never get another
spam or virus if you buy their product.
4,800 for a Barracuda? lol No thanks...
I hope someone sues them for deceptive advertising to shut down those
annoying commercials.