RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude & SmarterMail

[Harry Palmer]

We replaced IMail with SmarterMail on our server hosting 27 sites with 1,800+ users. I don't believe our message volume would be meaningful to you because we also have two IMGates (primary and secondary mxs) between the Internet and the SmarterMail server, same as we had with our IMail server. The IMGates reject a significant amount of worthless traffic, greatly reducing the workload on the SmarterMail server. We export the list of users, aliases and domains from SmarterMail to the IMGates, therefore providing a very effective defense against dictionary attacks.   Declude for SmarterMail is still in beta, so we have turned it on and off as we test. We don't yet have enough experience to accurately compare IMail+Declude to SmarterMail+Declude. It wouldn't be appropriate to evaluate the combination anyway, until Declude for SmarterMail is released for production use.   Overall, we are quite pleased with SmarterMail and all end user comments have been positive. Hope this helps. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave Doherty Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:50 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude & SmarterMail What sort of message volume are you testing? The SmarterTools folks say the CPU loads should be lighter with SM than IMal. Can you verify that from your experience?   I'm testing it as a "SmartHost" mail cache right now,  with volume of about 100,000 a day, and it looks to be holding up well in that environment. I am not testing it with Declude however. It does not appear that Declude functions with their SmartHost service.   I've had few issues with SM when using it as a mailcache. The mail issueis that I'm having trouble getting them to understand that the cache needs an address list from the POP server to protect it from dictionary attacks. My cache volmue would probably be about 1,000-3,000 if the cache could send back 550 errors. The spammers and hackers seem to be ignoring 550s from the main server and targeting the higher preference number MX on the cache.   -Dave Doherty  Skywaves, Inc.   ----- Original Message ----- From: Harry Palmer To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:24 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude & SmarterMail We are testing SmarterMail and Declude now. It is working quite well with a few outstanding issues. It's still in beta.