Re: Zimbra+SPAM=...?

[Brian Elliott Finley <finley@anl.gov>]

We use edge appliances (Ironports), and are very very happy with them.
Our level of spam fighting effort has dropped dramatically since we
started using them.  They have easily paid for themselves.

Internally, we still do virus scanning on Zimbra.

-Brian


On 08/16/2010 10:07 AM, Dmitry Makovey wrote:
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> we're trying to figure out the most efficient way of dealing with SPAM in Zimbra 
> (we have edge MTA handling some of it too). What we're trying to find out what 
> are the common practices in HiEd institutions? I'll bring some examples:
> 
> * do you let users "train" your Bayesian by marking mail as "Junk"?
> * do you flush your Bayesian DBs every once in a while (and how often)?
> * do you solely rely on Edge MTA for SPAM filtering and do only pass-through in 
> Zimbra?
> * etc. etc. etc.
> 
> We think our SPAM-filtering setup at present can't keep up with SPAM and we 
> have either lots of false-positives or the contrary - lots of false-negatives.
> 
> I've seen some opinions that you shouldn't double-filter with Bayesian as your 
> second instance would be "starving" and will not perform as expected. I also 
> have met with opinions that you shouldn't do rule-based filtering and rely 
> solely on Bayesian. Another opinion was that Bayesian is strictly a personal 
> tool and you can't apply one SPAM/HAM DB across institution because 
> preferences of HR clerk are different from Prof's and yet different from IT 
> professional due to the different vocabularies of incoming mail. And so on and 
> so forth. 
> 

-- 
Brian Elliott Finley
Manager, Application Platforms - Infrastructure and Operations
Computing and Information Systems,  Argonne National Laboratory
Office: +1 630.252.4742  Mobile: +1 630.447.9108