Educause Security Discussion mailing list archives
Re: Barracuda Spam Filter
From: Michael_Maloney <Michael_Maloney () MIDDLESEXCC EDU>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:14:09 -0400
I think it's funny that Microsoft Outlook's anti-spam filters tagged this thread as spam email... Mike ******************************************** Mike Maloney Sr. System Engineer Middlesex County College 2600 Woodbridge Avenue Edison, NJ 08818 Phone: 732-906-7754 Cell: 908-217-2086 Fax: 732-906-4266 Email: Michael_Maloney () middlesexcc edu ******************************************** -----Original Message----- From: Graham Toal [mailto:gtoal () UTPA EDU] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 3:12 PM To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Barracuda Spam Filter CAROLE CARMODY wrote:
Why do you say that it is safe to assume that I misspoke and that I meant to say that it is rejecting 90% of inbound mail as spam? That is not what I said not what I intended to say. The Director of Telecommunications at the College has said that (after looking at the logs) he believes that of the spam that arrives at the College through the e-mail system, only about 10% of all spam gets through as a result of using the Barracuda. Why is catching 90% of the spam pointless? If we don't catch 100% of the spam is this solution failing?
I wasn't the one that said it, but I'll answer because I agree with the sentiment: 90% was good when you got 10 spams a day, and one slipped through. However many of us who use email addresses which have been exposed on the net since the early days are *deluged* by spam - I personally receive about 2000 per day on my gtoal () gtoal com home address - and 10% of that would be ... more than I am willing to accept. Modern Bayesian spam filters are accurate in the high 9's, and most of the research and internecine warfare ;-) in the anti-spam community is about whether one guy's 99.3% with .001% false positive is better or worse that someone else's 99.9% with .002% false positives! Generally the split goes like this: some vendors refuse to get on board with the Bayesian bandwaggon, and stick to their 2-yr old software which is no longer adequate in the internet-time arms race that is spam vs antispam. They justify their low 90% recognition rates usually by a FUD campaign claiming that they have no false positives. Aside from the fact that the claims are somewhat dubious, plus that good Bayesian filters also have vanishingly low false positive rates now, what we're really looking at here is that there is a trade-off to be made between recognition rate and false positive rate, regardless of the technology, but that some people have zero tolerance for false positives. I personally do not see many false positives, but even if I did I would live with a few (say .001%?) for the benefit of having a >99.9% recognition rate. By the way, I keep *all* my mail, ever (since about 1976) and the last few years are filtered into separate ham and spam files. I use them as a regression test and to test new algorithms, and very occasionally I find a mail which was mis-categorized. I've had about 5 mails marked as bad that were good in the last year that I know of, out of about 50 good emails per day and 1000-2000 spams per day. (My home system doesn't grey list because I want the spam for my anti-spam software research :-) - otherwise it would be down to about 10 spams per day now) Anyway, nothing wrong with 90% and a very low FP rate, as long as your absolute spam rate stays low. Graham
Current thread:
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter, (continued)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Stephen W. Bradley (Jul 26)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Jamie A. Stapleton (Jul 26)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Graham Toal (Jul 26)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Justin Sipher (Jul 26)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Charlie Prothero (Jul 26)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Charlie Prothero (Jul 26)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Jamie A. Stapleton (Jul 26)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Parker, Ron (Jul 26)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Dave Koontz (Jul 26)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Matthew Keller (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Michael_Maloney (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Tony Harris (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Matthew Keller (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Dave Koontz (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Hall, Rand (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Information Security (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Parker, Ron (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Matthew Keller (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Matthew Keller (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Jamie A. Stapleton (Jul 27)
- Re: Barracuda Spam Filter Matthew Keller (Jul 28)
(Thread continues...)