Re: Future of Qmail-LDAP

You say I could have done myself. True - it's not rocket science. But
the time saved, the costs, the effort involved in both building and
maintaining what would have been a monster of a system. The
requirements from business also included quarantining mails - a tricky
proposal with 1.5M qmail-ldap system.

Up until we put in the ironports, we had built our own scanning
application used by qscanq which could pull in spamassassin, clamav
and any other scanning/filtering service - but it is a lot of work and
resources. And to give an idea - it is not possible to run
spamassassin on such a huge scale without serious additional
resources.

We also used RBLs inc spamcop. But they are only effective up to a
certain level. It is also a bit naive to think that Ironport is
basically just spamcop.

Greylisting? Seriously for that amount of traffic? I had 12 MTAs - all
of which were at least quad CPU machines (HP DL580s etc) To implement
a highly available database with sufficient storage both in size and
speed would be of significant costs - never mind the additional
overhead of managing it.

Tomas, it is easy for you to say you could have done it yourself but
if you could present hardware, management and the software that could
do the above for less then you could be well on your way to making a
lot of business for yourself.

Over the three year life cycle (minimum) it turns out to cost less
than $0.03 per user per month.

Bargain.

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Tomas Kuliavas
<[email protected]> wrote:
> There is nothing magic in spam filtering. They either use some custom RBLs
> or combine standard RBLs with content filtering based on some open source
> software (most likely spamassassin). Even conservative RBLs classify
> 75-90% of email traffic as spam. Since ironport owns spamcop, then their
> RBL data can be based on spamcop reports. Spamcop is not conservative RBL.
> I think they even had page which stated that their RBL should be used only
> for tagging.
>
> You paid 1.5M for dedicated spam filtering box which you could setup
> yourself.
>
> If your traffic is reduced, then their solution is based on RBL or some
> RBL data is integrated into firewall or you didn't use RBLs in the first
> place and relied only on greylisting/content filters. Or they offload
> email traffic to remote servers and only your own traffic is reduced.
>
> 2010.02.08 22:47 Scott Ryan rašė:
>> To handle over a billion mails a month and reduce bandwidth by about
>> 50-60% (in a country who's international bandwidth is limited compared
>> to rest of world) as well as severely reducing the load on the SAN and
>> mail storage environment - all in all it was about $1.5M.
>>
>> Turned out to be a no brainer.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Hugo Monteiro <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2010 07:39 PM, Scott Ryan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I ended up handing the fight over to Ironport. Put in some Ironport
>>>> devices in front of my mail environment and ...
>>>> VIOLA! no more spam.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Reputation filters .. isn't that a new fancy name for RBLs? Thanks but
>>> no
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity.. how much $/€/£ each, and how many did you need for
>>> your
>>> infra-structure?
>>>
>>> R's,
>>>
>>> Hugo Monteiro.
>>>
>>> --
>>> fct.unl.pt:~# cat .signature
>>>
>>> Hugo Monteiro
>>> Email    : [email protected]
>>> Telefone : +351 212948300 Ext.15307
>>> Web      : http://hmonteiro.net
>>>
>>> Divisão de Informática
>>> Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da
>>>                   Universidade Nova de Lisboa
>>> Quinta da Torre   2829-516 Caparica   Portugal
>>> Telefone: +351 212948596   Fax: +351 212948548
>>> www.ci.fct.unl.pt             [email protected]
>>>
>>> fct.unl.pt:~# _
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott Ryan
>> http://bonoboslr.wordpress.com/
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Scott Ryan
http://bonoboslr.wordpress.com/