Spam Cube hardware filter reviewed
By Evan Blass 
posted March 30th 2006 8:00PM
posted March 30th 2006 8:00PM
It's hard to
get a good sense of a pre-release product whose full benefits can only be derived from widespread adoption, so David
Pogue's experience with the Spam
Cube should definitely not be considered indicative of how this device will perform once thousands of users are
helping to tweak its filters. Still, some of the problems that Pogue identifies in this hardware spam solution will not
improve even when adoption reaches critical mass, such as its incompatibility with non-Outlook email programs and
unnecessary lack of portability (that big box is almost all air). Benefits of the Cube include no required software
that hijacks processor cycles or subscription fees to keep your definitions up to date, and that user feedback feature
which will help the network-based detection program keep abreast of the latest spammer tricks -- although
out-of-the-box, Pogue found that the device flagged an unacceptable number of legit messages as spam. All in all, the
$150 Cube is presented as be a great concept that may be getting released before it's completely polished, although
we'll wait for another review after the general release and promised firmware upgrade before passing final judgement..
good idea, keep making good product.
You've got to be kidding...
SPAM is a trademarked name...
OH Please. IT companies are externalizing software. They are trying to create new markets for what your PC can already do in software. And of course they will say it is safer. There is no rationale for anyone to buy redundant hardware. PhysX chip & dual GPU are good examples also of companies trying to create new markets. What next, will it be back to the future with Intel telling you to buy their seperate "maths coprocessor" to boost performance?
/
P.S. Please google "maths coprocessor" if you don't get the joke.
If this works a standard should bre developed then it should be built in to the NIC or the processor or the router or something.
Or you could just get gmail...for FREE. My spam on gmail never gets through to the inbox. I may be missing something but it seems to me like whoever buys this is stupid.
no way am I using outlook. nu-uh
After we dismiss #s 5&6 because they obviously don't understand that businesses aren't run out of their parents' basements, let's just head over to MailStreet.com and sign up for $3/user/mo or if you've got more than a couple dozen users, messagelabs. People who buy these dime a dozen appliances are kidding themselves. Let somebody else take care of it and keep their software and algorithms up to date.
To specify, MailStreet's Defender AS/AV service, not their Exchange hosting (which isn't a half-bad deal either though).
#3 distantbody:
http://digg.com/technology/Return_of_the_Math_Co-processor_AMD_says_maybe.
;)
Forget it - get Postini, neatest little service ever. Plus, it will cache your emails in case your exchange server crashes.
i run my email through my college email filters, which forewards it to my gmail account filters, and then forewards it to outlook which filters with its own filter system and zonealarm's filter system. Nothing gets through that i dont want.
PC World gave it a good review
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,125180,00.asp
NYTimes is always negative on a lot of new things, even some of the best gadgets like the slingbox (i love that thing)
I think this is a leet idea, i do computer repair for a living i'd make a fortune selling this thing to half of my customers! when i try to explain open source or software anti-spam programs to them they look at me like im speaking chinese.
This thing definitely has its perks and i won't be surprised if we see this company make a spam cube router soon, it's obvious.
That PC World article is a good read. I live in NYC and seen this article in the times today it was on the front page of the business section. It was a good balanced article, i think pogue did a good job evaluating it.
The product is definitely a hit or it wouldn't of made the front page of the biz section thats for sure!
For the record i ordered one today :-)
You people are forgetting that no business has the time or the IT patience to run their e-mail through 20 filters and across 3 sides of the continent - we need our e-mail to just WORK, spam-free.
This is a practical idea, but we can do the same thing with a decent filterset on a mailserver...
-Chris
Amen to #7: Outsource that bitch and call it a day.
2Brian: don't be rude! :-)
Simply incredible! One of these days I will buy such a box. The spam is the sickness of the Net. But, unfortunately I have not enough money yet.
This sort of solution misses the point somewhat. If you are sharing your spam corpus with the rest of the world, then it isn't as effective as having your own individual corpus.
To give an extreme example, if you were a sexual health researcher, you might get emails from colleagues about viagra. With an individual corpus, "viagra" would not actually be related that highly as spam (although v!agrra would be, since your colleagues would not spell it like that). However, for the majority it *is* a spammy word. So using the spam box solution, all the emails from your colleagues would be marked as spam!
It's similar to the way that if my girlfriend got email containing the word "software", it would be more likely to be spam than if I did. Or if I got an email containing "win prizes", it would be more likely to be spam than if she got it.
If we shared our corpuses then both our spam filtering systems would suffer. This goes some way to explainuing why David Pogue had so many false positives; terms in his genuine emails would probably be 'spammy' to the population at large.
Having said that, there is some value in ten thousand people claiming that a word or set of words is spammy. But the individual's preferences should take precedence; the "opinion of the masses" should be taken into account, not taken as gospel.
er, "related" should read "rated" in my post above.
Zoara they don't use keywords to sniff out spam according to their site its some sort of proprietary A.I. thats educated by a hybrid expert system. Not sure what that is i googled it and it returns a bunch of crazy A.I. articles.
I highly doubt its that simple where people "vote" on keywords, highly doubtful thats their ENTIRE method of filtering spam.
It doesnt even mention that keyword filtering on their web site
http://www.spamcube.com/howdoesitwork/spam/#ai
toobsdfortv, fair enough. But I think my point still stands; the article talks about how the service will improve over time as more and more people take it up. That implies that there is some kind of system in place that takes the 'votes' from users and uses those to improve the spam recognition.
So they're still in the situation where you as end user are relying on *other people's* definition of spam.
@ #5: That is their selling point ;).
Get a Mac ya gormless pillock.
people. come on this is classic HOAX> go in check out company info and about the founders. its all crap the hyper link to their so called venture capitalist group draws a blank. plus the founder of the company is also founder of the venture group. Plus being a member of the Sillicon Alley.. people this one stinks of a HOAX all the way. i dont believe it .. people are having serious discussion over this one. HAPPY APRIL FOOLS DAY
lol dood it was featured in the NY Times front page of the business section and reviewed by PC World.
How can it be a hoax if they had one to test out? stop smoking the ganja it's making you paranoid ;)
I for one like the concept – and have ordered one. I'm trying to free my family from being tethered to a single computer for things like email (but also favorites and other settings). That way if I’m on our main computer – my wife or kids can access there email as though they were ON the main computer. I’m hoping with Spam Cube it will all be scanned centrally rather than through independently trained filters.
I’m also training the family to use Netvibes and Del.icio.us rather than depending on duplicating browser set up across computers.