No one goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.
Earlier, JD posted a link to MailChannels’ Blog. The long and short of it is that InfoWorld has published a comparison of various antispam systems and the folks at MailChannels have a few issues with it. They make some good points, like needing to figure in the reaction time of a solution to new threats, and I have to say that in general I agree with them in that InfoWorld’s methodology tests the wrong things.
What I disagree slightly with them about is what they actually should be measuring.
Try this on for size …. the ideal antispam solution doesn’t catch anything.
It makes the spammers stop trying altogether.
Granted, it’s counterintuitive. It doesn’t make for an easy to explain comparison chart or a impressive graph with a huge ‘blocked’ number. I’ve been trying for a long time and I have yet to think of a good way to visually communicate the effectiveness of a deterrent, but that’s what we really need to measure these solutions on. Especially when management is looking to cut costs and figures they can just turn off stuff that doesn’t appear to be ‘doing anything’.
We can filter spam from now until the heat death of the universe and talk about how much or how high of a percentage we are catching, but that doesn’t necessarily make any progress towards really stopping it. First and foremost, we have to make sure that the solutions we use take the correct strategic approach.
So ask yourself, does your current solution encourage the spammers to try harder, to find the gaps in your armor and attempt to send even more mail so they still get the delivery numbers they want, or does it make them give up?
Sausage, anonymous contributer
