4 Spam Filters Used & Reviewed

From: Keith Pieper <discussions_at_keithpieper.com>
Date: Thu 12 Dec 2002 10:58:21 -0600

I used Cloudmark for some time. However, I really haven't seen a significant
change in functionality, the things the tool really needs...easier
integration of a white list for starters.

I own hundreds of domain names, each with at least one active email account.
So you can imagine the onslaught of spam I receive at times.

I recently ran across Matador by http://www.mailfrontier.com/ who uses a
similar approach to Cloudmark...a distributed network of users sharing in
the creation and use of spam filters. It seems to have all of the things
Cloudmark has, and then some. It creates a white list from your contacts
list and includes the ability to block entire companies, setting the
sensitivity for filters, incorporating a "challenge" reply message for
questionable emails and some handy reports.

I've also used http://www.SpamCop.net for quite some time. Their approach is
drastically different, filtering entire IPs and domains based on a set of
blacklists (like MAPS), although it is quite effective.

My primary email account is through ATT who uses Brightmail, a filter
similar to Cloudmark and MailFrontier, however Brightmail is sold to ISPs
(and probably corporations) rather than individuals. The Brightmail
approach, however, uses staff to check email boxes for spam and update their
filters accordingly (whereas Cloudmark and MailFrontier rely on their
network of customers/users). Brightmail is not customizable on the user end.

I have tried them all individually and in combination with each other,
Brightmail and SpamCop appear to filter nearly the same amount.
MailFrontier's Matador is my favorite pick for its customization and
effectiveness. Although I feel the optimal solution would be a combination
of SpamCop list-based filters and MailFrontier's Matador.

Keith Pieper
http://www.hireROI.com
Strategy + Creativity





Received on Thu Dec 12 2002 - 10:58:21 CST