Carrier class email security recommendation

todd glassey tglassey at earthlink.net
Mon Apr 12 09:18:18 CDT 2010


On 4/12/2010 7:14 AM, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 07:09 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
>> On 4/12/2010 2:49 AM, Alex Kamiru wrote:
>>> I am in the process of sourcing for a carrier class email security
>>> solution that will replace our current edge spam gateways based on open
>>> source solutions. Some solutions that am currently considering are
>>> Ironport, Fortinet Fortimail, MailFoundry and Barracuda. I'd therefore
>>> wish to know, based on your experiences, what works for you
>>> satisfactorily. 
>>
>>
>>> Areas that are key for me are centralized management and
>>> reporting, carrier class performance, per mailbox policy and quarantine,
>>> and favourable licensing for an MSSP. I know Ironport is rated highly in
>>> this space but I find its per user licensing is not favourable for a
>>> MSSP. 
>>
>> On the other hand installing a FreeBSD system with QMail/Procmail and/or
>> PostFIX for the other stuff is a no-brainer especially with a Webmin
>> Management front end.
> 
> Webmin?  Are you serious?

Yes William, but realize that was an "easiest method" solution. There
are any number of others as well.

The point is that integrating an appliance type functionality is pretty
easy if you bother to take the time.

What I really wanted to point out is how many of the devices dont allow
authenticated NTP meaning they are worthless from an evidence
perspective, something that we as network engineers are constrained by
as well.

Todd

> 
> William
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tglassey.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 133 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100412/e69c1ddc/attachment.vcf>


More information about the NANOG mailing list