I think mindshare and resources count here. In the case of PhishingGuardian, I’d never heard of it prior to your mention. I don’t know that people are as concerned about phishing specifically in the range of spam types. Some or all phishing email may fall under other spam classifications anyway.
Tradition is one thing, but Barracuda is a proven solution that achieves a good balance of cost, ease of use and feature set. It would take something drastic for me to evaluate another solution. However, I did explore other options during a major Barracuda licensing issue (http://serverfault.com/q/297815/13325) and a really bad bug that bricked a few appliances (http://serverfault.com/a/376709/13325). -- Edmund White e...@ewwhite.net On 10/28/14, 6:42 AM, "Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)" <lop...@nedharvey.com> wrote: >> From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org] >> On Behalf Of Derek Murawsky >> >> Another vote for Barracuda here. It's a fire and forget solution that >>just > >Two strong responses for Barracuda - but this kind of misses the point of >the question - PhishingGuardian compares themselves to the "Leading SPAM >filter" which I guess is probably Barracuda. They say the leading filter >prevented 0 of the tested attacks in the default setting, prevented 33% >in the aggressive setting (with more false positives) and they claim >their own prevented 87% while simultaneously producing fewer false >positives. > >Sure, they might have fed biased attacks into the system in order to >produce biased results. I don't know. So this is the point of the >question. How do you choose? Do you choose Barracuda basically out of >tradition? What if PhishingGuardian really *is* so much better? If we >hypothetically assert that PhishingGuardian is an upgrade over Barracuda, >is there any way to test that assertion? Will anyone notice or care >about an upgrade? Would they conversely notice or care if they were >forced to downgrade back? > >An interesting thing I've observed many times before, is that when people >think things are pretty good already and you upgrade them, they don't >seem to really notice. If you can't compel them into upgrading >something, they stick with the old thing for an eternity, basically >because it's what they're used to. I once tried and failed to get a >company to upgrade the network where hundreds of people were working >remotely on a dozen VM's, which all shared a 1Gbit bottleneck to the >virtual storage. (Iscsi over 1Gbit ether. The year 2012.) I found it >excruciatingly horrible to work on that system. But if you ever have to >downgrade for some reason, they scream bloody murder. I found that >particular system horrible, basically because I had other systems to >compare against. But the typical user had no perspective so they thought >it was just fine. I once rolled out new laptops with SSD's instead of >HDD's. Nobody cared. Then a couple of times, people had to go back to >HDD, and > > it was like the end of the world. >_______________________________________________ >Tech mailing list >Tech@lists.lopsa.org >https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
