{"id":1460,"date":"2006-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-22T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/01\/22\/ironport-gets-tougher-on-spam\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:39:25","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:39:25","slug":"ironport-gets-tougher-on-spam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/01\/22\/ironport-gets-tougher-on-spam\/","title":{"rendered":"IronPort Gets Tougher On Spam"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Getting tougher on spam, San Bruno Calif.-based e-mail security vendor IronPort is enhancing its SenderBase e-mail traffic monitoring network with URL tracking and Web reputation data filtering.  Assessing the reputation of the e-mail sender was not enough to block spam and phishing attacks that are becoming increasingly complex, said IronPort&#8217;s vice president of technology Pat Peterson.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>IronPort is not the only vendor to use reputation data filtering, but its database that analyzes and scores the IP addresses of incoming e-mail is one of the largest on the market, said Jay Gregg, practice manager with Houston-based solution provider Accudata Systems.<\/p>\n<p>IronPort claims its SenderBase network is built with data from more than 100,000 participating organizations that identify bad URLs and known spammers.  SenderBase filters out so much spam at the perimeter, customers initially don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s working because they no longer see as much spam on a quarantine list, Gregg said.<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.informationweek.com\/security\/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=177102942<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-product"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1460","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1460"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1460\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3947,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1460\/revisions\/3947"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}