Search
Browse by Topic
- Ferris Deliverables
- Topics
- Vendors and Products
- Attenex
- Autonomy/Zantaz
- AXS-One
- Blue Coat
- Borderware
- C2C
- CA/Ilumin
- CaseCentral
- Cetaphora
- Cisco/Ironport
- Clearswift
- Clearwell
- Code Green
- CommVault
- EMC
- Fortiva
- GFI
- Global Relay
- Google/Postini
- H&S
- HP/IAP
- IBM CommonStore
- IBM Notes/Domino
- IBM Quickplace
- Intradyn
- Iron Mountain/Stratify
- Kazeon
- LiveOffice
- Marshal
- McAfee
- MessageLabs
- MessageOne
- MessageSolution
- Microsoft Exchange/Outlook
- Mimosa
- Open Text/Hummingbird
- Oracle/Stellent
- Orchestria
- Proofpoint
- Quest
- Recommind
- Reconnex
- RPost
- Seagate/EVault/MetaLINCS
- Sherpa Software
- SonicWALL
- Symantec/Vault/Veritas/Vontu
- Tablus
- Titus Labs
- Trend Micro
- Vericept
- Waterford
- Websense/PortAuthority/SurfControl
- ZL Technologies
If you are a subscriber to our Analyzer Information Service, please log in to view subscriber attachments.
Spam control continues to be a major issue for IT departments, and a variety of anti-spam solutions compete for market share. This Ferris report reviews the evolution and current status of spam technologies and describes the key attributes that a robust spam control product should provide. The report also explores whether spam control solutions have indeed become price-based commodities or whether they still have important differences in technique and effectiveness.
Report 668.
Important Questions Addressed by This Report Include:
- Is spam control a commodity, or do products have competitive differences?
- How have spam control solutions evolved over the past few years?
- What are the main categories of anti-spam technologies?
- How should spam control be implemented?
Who Is This Report Suitable For?
This report is suitable for all levels of IT and vendor product management staff.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Key Findings
Threat Landscape of Spam
Image Spam Is the Latest Threat
Spam Control Techniques
Content Analysis
Behavior Analysis
Reputation Analysis
Sender Authentication
Challenge/Response Systems
Key Implementation Issues
Internal Product Architectures
Sensitivity to False Positives
Spam Control Is Best at the Perimeter
Issues With Client-Based Spam Control
Benefits of a Single-Vendor Solution
Spam Control Is Not a Commodity
Spam Catch and False Positive Rates Matter
Market Consolidation Doesn’t Entail Commodity Status
Pricing Is Not the Only Evaluation Criterion
For More Information
Please Wait
Leave a Reply