http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2008/04/16/a-comparison-of-antispam-vendors.aspxInfoWorld recently released a report where they compared the effectiveness of various spam filters.&#160; It's mostly about on-premise anti-spam appliances.&#160; They do touch on hosted solutions but don't go into much detail.&#160; At the end, theyenCommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2008/04/16/a-comparison-of-antispam-vendors.aspx#8399484Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:50:01 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:8399484Microsoft news and tips &raquo; A comparison of antispam vendors<p>PingBack from <a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://microsoftnews.askpcdoc.com/?p=2871">http://microsoftnews.askpcdoc.com/?p=2871</a></p> http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2008/04/16/a-comparison-of-antispam-vendors.aspx#8401958Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:11:41 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:8401958Mark V. Camilleri<p>Very interesting study but to be quite honest I think they left a couple of good appliances out of that study.</p> http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2008/04/16/a-comparison-of-antispam-vendors.aspx#8408136Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:49:55 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:8408136JasonG<p>Indeed, the software/appliance from Roaring Penguin, called CanIT Pro is noticably absent.</p> <p>Also, as someone else wrote elsewhere, the catch rate is a little misleading due to how much spam is blocked at SMTP connection time. &nbsp;Read about that here: <a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://blog.mailchannels.com/2008/04/why-anti-spam-effectiveness-testing.html">http://blog.mailchannels.com/2008/04/why-anti-spam-effectiveness-testing.html</a></p> <p>We use the ironport c100 here and it has a much higher catch rate than what this InfoWorld report claims. &nbsp;Here's 30 days worth of stats on incomming mail (note AV result is inacurate as it reflects mails with password protected or encrypted content, regardless if it was actually infected):</p> <p>Stopped by Reputation Filtering 98.9% &nbsp; 6.9M</p> <p>Stopped as Invalid Recipients &nbsp; 0.7% &nbsp; &nbsp;47.8k</p> <p>Spam Detected &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0.1% &nbsp; &nbsp;5,795</p> <p>Virus Detected &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;0.0% &nbsp; &nbsp;1</p> <p>Stopped by Content Filter &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0.0% &nbsp; &nbsp;0</p> <p>Total Threat Messages: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;99.7% &nbsp; 7.0M</p> <p>Clean Messages &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;0.3% &nbsp; &nbsp;20.6k </p> <p>Total Attempted Messages: 7.0M</p> <p>Although the numbers are rounded, you can see that the catch rate performance is clearly better than what TFA states.</p>