Comments on the effectiveness and responsiveness of Brightmail antispam service?

I would be grateful for comments from those whose ISP's are using the
Brightmail antispam service.

Here at BTO we are finding that it is extremely ineffective at filtering
certain types of spam, and very slow at responding to obvious patterns
of more or less identical spam with clearly obvious subject lines and
repeated domains in the html content. We have been able to get virtually
no information or action from BTO support so far.

As an example, we have had a flood of a particular type of po*n spam for
about ten days with little filtering occurring. Comments welcom.

--
Rev Robert M Jones - http://www.wimborne-baptist.org.uk
remove the obvious to reply by email
Mailwasher - effective email spam filter - click below
(Commission goes to support church partners in Bulgaria)
http://entier.ecosm.com/link/?wybteq

In article <bgdaph$5dn$(E-Mail Removed)>,
robertmjones2ihatespam@removethisbit...internet .com (Robert M Jones)
wrote:

> I would be grateful for comments from those whose ISP's are using the
> Brightmail antispam service.
>
> Here at BTO we are finding that it is extremely ineffective at filtering
> certain types of spam, and very slow at responding to obvious patterns
> of more or less identical spam with clearly obvious subject lines and
> repeated domains in the html content. We have been able to get virtually
> no information or action from BTO support so far.
>
> As an example, we have had a flood of a particular type of po*n spam for
> about ten days with little filtering occurring. Comments welcom.
>
> --
> Rev Robert M Jones - http://www.wimborne-baptist.org.uk
> remove the obvious to reply by email
> Mailwasher - effective email spam filter - click below
> (Commission goes to support church partners in Bulgaria)
> http://entier.ecosm.com/link/?wybteq
>
>
>
That's because it's an American outfit, do you send a copy of your spam to
Brightmail every time you receive it ?

I use BM, and find that it's a bit slow, but overall, it catches about 90%
of my spam, Mailwasher then takes care of the rest.

Steve

Steve wrote:
> In article <bgdaph$5dn$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> robertmjones2ihatespam@removethisbit...internet .com (Robert M
> Jones) wrote:
>
>> I would be grateful for comments from those whose ISP's are using the
>> Brightmail antispam service.
>>
>> Here at BTO we are finding that it is extremely ineffective at
>> filtering certain types of spam, and very slow at responding to
>> obvious patterns of more or less identical spam with clearly obvious
>> subject lines and repeated domains in the html content. We have been
>> able to get virtually no information or action from BTO support so
>> far.
>>
>> As an example, we have had a flood of a particular type of po*n spam
>> for about ten days with little filtering occurring. Comments welcom.
>>
>> --
>> Rev Robert M Jones - http://www.wimborne-baptist.org.uk
>> remove the obvious to reply by email
>> Mailwasher - effective email spam filter - click below
>> (Commission goes to support church partners in Bulgaria)
>> http://entier.ecosm.com/link/?wybteq
>>
>>
>>
> That's because it's an American outfit, do you send a copy of your
> spam to Brightmail every time you receive it ?
>
> I use BM, and find that it's a bit slow, but overall, it catches
> about 90% of my spam, Mailwasher then takes care of the rest.
>
> Steve
Thanks Steve. No we don't have the facility for reporting back to BM -
although BTO support are now telling us to manually move our unfiltered
spam into the spambox on the web based interface so that it can be fed
back to BM as the "will filter on the From Address" !!

Many of us have doubts as to whether there is any point in doing this,
as we cannot see the point and it is a right pain the the butt -
especially if we don't normally access the web interface. And as for
filtering on the From address.... ?!


--
Rev Robert M Jones - http://www.wimborne-baptist.org.uk
remove the obvious to reply by email
Mailwasher - effective email spam filter - click below
(Commission goes to support church partners in Bulgaria)
http://entier.ecosm.com/link/?wybteq

In article <bgdt2b$dk1$(E-Mail Removed)>,
robertmjones2ihatespam@removethisbit...internet .com (Robert M Jones)
wrote:

> > That's because it's an American outfit, do you send a copy of your
> > spam to Brightmail every time you receive it ?
> >
> > I use BM, and find that it's a bit slow, but overall, it catches
> > about 90% of my spam, Mailwasher then takes care of the rest.
> >
> > Steve
> Thanks Steve. No we don't have the facility for reporting back to BM -
> although BTO support are now telling us to manually move our unfiltered
> spam into the spambox on the web based interface so that it can be fed
> back to BM as the "will filter on the From Address" !!
>
> Many of us have doubts as to whether there is any point in doing this,
> as we cannot see the point and it is a right pain the the butt -
> especially if we don't normally access the web interface. And as for
> filtering on the From address.... ?!
>
>
I believe that there is still human intervention on forwarded emails
anyway. So it's not going to be fast enough to catch the bulk of the crap.


Steve

"Robert M Jones" <robertmjones2ihatespam@removethisbitherebtinterne t.com>
wrote in news:bgdaph$5dn$(E-Mail Removed):

> I would be grateful for comments from those whose ISP's are using the
> Brightmail antispam service.
>
> Here at BTO we are finding that it is extremely ineffective at filtering
> certain types of spam,

I found the BTO spam service took about about half my spam, when I applied
www.spamache.com to the account is took out another 49% or so.

Phil