[122662] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spamhaus and Barracuda Networks BRBL
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel M Snyder)
Thu Feb 18 20:51:16 2010
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:50:39 -0700
From: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder@Opus1.COM>
In-reply-to: <mailman.4383.1266542406.817.nanog@nanog.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: drako@barracuda.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Dean Drako wrote:
>We make no claims about it being better
>or worse than any other RBL.
I have some objective data based on our testing here. Over the past 18
months, Barracuda's block rate is 81.9%, while Spamhaus' is 83.3%. For
whatever measurement error you want to include, that says that they are
roughly equivalent. Over the past 6 months, BRBL is actually getting
better: their block rate is 87%, while Spamhaus is 82%.
There is, of course, a catch. BRBL gets a higher rate, but at a
substantially higher false positive (FP) rate. We normalize FPs per
10,000 messages our measurements. Over the last 18 months, BRBL was 4.1
FP/10K messages; Spamhaus 0.2 FP/10K messages. Again, BRBL is getting
better: over the past 6 months, BRBL went down to 1.6 FP/10K messages,
while Spamhaus is about the same at 0.3 FP/10K messages.
So, depending on your definition of "better," you could either say "BRBL
is better" or "BRBL is worse." It would generally depend on your
sensitivity to FPs.
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494
jms@Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms
