© ESCOM Corp. 2000-2005
This page provides comments about ESCOM's Active SMTP (ASMTP) technology from the following customers:
Andy Kraus of the Kansas Legislature wrote the following letter to PC Magazine, after finding that they did not review ASMTP in a spam filtering article:
Jasper Engines & Transmissions was founded in 1942 and today is the nation's largest mass remanufacturer of a diverse line of drive train components. Annual production includes 75,000 gas engines; 55,000 transmissions; 5,500 diesel engines; 3,000 differentials and rear axle assemblies; and 1,500 stern drives. Jasper Engines & Transmissions employs 1500 associates. Our mission statement is simple: "Do It Right and Have Fun!"
In May of 2002 we began to research solutions to the disgusting amounts of spam our corporation was receiving. We looked at managed services, blacklisting (RBL, MAPS, etc), and client side solutions:
Then we found ASMTP -- it's heuristical blocking and quarantining technology was extremely impressive, not only could we administer the inbound mail, so could individual users. The Active Filtering technology is exactly what's needed to effectively stop spam and allow legitimate email into our system. With the appliance's only requirement SMTP mail we realized instantly that we wouldn't be locked into any particular type of mail configuration or mail system.
At Jasper Engines & Transmissions we expect all our systems to run virtually non-stop. We support 2 manufacturing facilities, 2 sales/warranty call centers, 200 field salesmen, and 30 branch distribution offices. We have not turned the ASMTP appliance off for over 200 days; it has never failed to accept an email. It has performed exceptionally, blocking 99.9% of spam, which accounted for roughly 45% of our inbound email. Users send me the odd message once a week or so because it slipped by for various reasons, usually it is a legitimate email address and properly configured remote mail system. Users feel that we've claimed their mailbox back for them. We know that ESCOM is responsible.
Mo-Net Inc. is an internet service provider in Southwest Missouri with 10,000 users. We've been running ESCOM's ASMTP since early 2002 and are pleased with the results. After we tested ASMTP in our network, we sent the following response to a price quote from a leading filtering bureau:
"We found a solution [ASMTP] that pretty much does what your's does for a one-time hardware/software cost of under $6000. It gives customers complete control of their mail with a web-based interface, and/or gives us control on a system-wide basis. Your cost for our size company came to over $20,000 per year. That is simply not feasible when we can do it with a one-time cost of less than 1/3 of your ANNUAL cost.
Rainbow Studios has been running ASMTP with Microsoft Exchange 5.5 for a number of months now, and our reduction in spam has been phenomenal. We receive tens of thousands of SMTP connections per month, and about 30% of our incoming mail is junkmail. ASMTP has worked wonders, and only a handful of spam is delivered to users - to the point where users actually forward the delivered spam messages to me. I often follow up on the messages that do make it through, something unthinkable before ASMTP. I wanted a transparent solution that works, and that's what ESCOM delivered.
The Object Management Group (OMG) is an industry consortium with about eight hundred organizational members, with over three thousand individual members daily using our email services. These members send mail to various mailing list aliases, where our sendmail server expands each alias to the various members of the list, and then distributes the message to its members. We often see loads in the tens of megabytes of email per month.
So when a spammer would spam one of our input address aliases, the spam could be reflected to hundreds or even thousands of individual mailboxes. This of course was exactly what the spammers wanted, and contributed to the hundreds of spam mails forwarded by our server every week. We previously used sendmail to block known IP addresses, domains, and email addresses. But this didn't work very well because the spammers would just find a new relay to forward their mail to us.
ESCOM's ASMTP does dynamic testing when the remote host connects to our network. If a remote host fails these dynamic tests, ASMTP quarantines the message (on the ASMTP Appliance) until the message can be reviewed by an administrator. This architecture is a huge win for OMG because:
In addition, at our suggestion, ESCOM added the capability to block messages containing certain risky attachment file types, e.g., .BAT, .EXE, .VBS. While this is not full-blown virus detection, this mechanism easily handled the recent W32/Sircam and W32/Nimda virus attacks, none of which penetrated our defenses. These sorts of messages are quarantined where one of our administrators can review and either dispose of messages without any risk of infection, or forward messages if they are legitimate.
Installation was straightforward -- we installed the appliance on the network, changed DNS to point to the appliance as our new MX host, and it began processing mail. No changes were required to our mail server.
We don't have any comparative performance figures, but it stands to reason
that by removing the junk mail from our mail server, it now has more cycles
to spend handling our critical mailing list activity.
We don't have any comparative performance figures, but it stands to reason that by removing the junk mail from our mail server, it now has more cycles to spend handling our critical mailing list activity.
We are delighted with the ESCOM ASMTP product, and recommend it unreservedly to organizations. The low price and superb performance have made the choice simple to make based on immediate return on investment, and our decision to deploy the product has greatly increased the quality of service we can offer our customers.
[During] an eight week test of the Active SMTP appliance from ESCOM Corporation ... the appliance successfully quarantined over 99.87% of the spam.
During this time there were no complaints from the users that any of their correspondents had contacted them via alternate means to inform them of their inability to send mail to them because of the use of the ASMTP appliance. (As opposed to a separate test period when it was turned OFF and one of the users complained: "I guess ASMTP hasn't been running lately, because I've gotten a burst of spam."