----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 08:59:38AM -0400, Frank Muto wrote:
>> That still puts pressure on the system resources. As a wireless
>> provider you have enough on your plate to deal with. Options
>> include, outsourcing email with integrated spam/virus (AS/AV) with
>> IMAP/POP3/Webmail options, or outsource the AS/AV and take the load
>> off of your systems.
>
> I outsource my spam scanning.  I will *not* outsource my e-mail hosting.
>
> I outsourced anti-spam/anti-virus onto a barracuda model 400 because it
> was the model which would :
>
>  A) Save me 20 hours per week of analyzing and creating rules for my
>     SpamAssassin boxes.
>
>  B) Still let me follow every message, every step of the way through
>     the systems.
>
>  C) Only need one BSF 400 to handle the load that required 2
>     SpamAssassin boxes.
>
>  D) Allow me to rebrand the interface.
>
>  E) Provide a web GUI for users to tweak their individual settings to a
>     level which worked for them, with a quarantine holding area other
>     than their inbox for the borderline stuff.  False positives suck
>     less if you can pull them out of the quarantine.
>
> Things like Postini provide some of the same benefits.  But I really,
> really worry about B.  I could buy a new BSF model 600 every two years
> for the prices I was quoted by the Postini sales guy (not you).

Don't get me wrong, Barracuda makes a fine appliance and comparing them to a 
hosted solution with far greater processing 
power, 7 global data centers and 14 redundant systems, now with the strength of 
Google's cash and server farms, is two 
different things.

As for B, unfortunately that is a weakness that some IT people can not give up. 
45% of the IT departments in Fortune 1000 
companies in the US do not have too much of that same problem.

> A year or two later, I bought a second model 400 to help deal with the
> scanning load.  Spam volume had more than doubled.  Currently, we see
> more than 700,000 message send attempts to the two boxes per day.  The
> RBLs take out approximately 600,000 of those attempts.
>
>> Your current mail system is there for backup should you ever need
>> it, if you outsource email. We have some clients that split between
>> the two by e.g., keeping their appliance, in this case Barracuda and
>> outsourcing additional AS/AV and email.  Barracuda needs to upgrade
>> their 300/400 units with Gigabit Ethernet, IMO. Instead of selling
>> higher priced models or additional units to cover the amount of load
>> even for the under 500 user systems.
>
> I'm curious why you think the model 300/400 barracudas are desperately
> in need of gigabit ethernet.  In my experience with e-mail
> handling, the network interface has never been the bottleneck.  An
> anti-spam/anti-virus box needs lots of RAM, CPU and HD IO bandwidth.

This is what we are seeing with our cross-over sales from Cuda boxes coming 
over to Postini and some putting Postini in front 
of the Cuda box. Again the two services offer like services, but are still 
different. Postini is an easy product to offer as 
a reseller and our IT resellers who swap out 300/400 units for Postini tell us 
the box is a bottle neck.

Just in our own office network, we have some fairly high-end computers and run 
different NAS units for continuous backups and 
failover mirrored directories. When we went from a 10/100 to a Gigabit network, 
it was a significant boost to productivity. I 
feel the same could be done for the Cuda box, because selling a box based on 
active users, IMO no longer fits their modeling. 
We have Postini clients with 200-300 users out gunning clients with 3 to 4 
times the amount of users. With Postini, big or 
small, it does not matter.


> I wouldn't want to have to do much more non-RBL based scanning of mail
> with my two model 400s but that's not due to their choice of NIC.
>
> While I do have a few reservations about Barracuda Networks, it seems
> really weird to be slamming them for only having 100Mbps ethernet on
> their low end models.  The CPU and RAM in the BSF model 400 and below
> could never deal with a full 100Mbps of traffic.  E-mail traffic is less
> than 4% of our total network traffic.


> I would like to try a MailFoundry box because they seem to compare
> favorably to the BSFs at a slightly lower cost.  But, users *hate*
> change and if the MailFoundry didn't work, there would be two changes.
> Users switch to other providers at the slightest hint that there might
> be a change coming.  Users are strange.  Also, I don't have enough
> issues with the BSFs to be that interested in spending time converting
> to another system.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to