Idalis' technology and philosophy isn't just blocking and filtering malicious e-mail, it's identifying, classifying, and blocking/filtering the spammer's signatures which ARE the root cause of the spam and botnet problem.

Idalis Software isn't reinventing a new spam technology, rather we've created a system which can instantly identify or mine the primary signatures of a spam organization from only one e-mail message which doesn't require large spam patterns or "after the fact" responsiveness. Our patent-pending signature detection engine obtains the most important aspects of malicious e-mail, representing 99 percent of all spam including: spamvertised websites, phishing fraud, botnets, spam-friendly networks, spam domain registrars, hi-jacked websites, virus links, botnet locations, and most importantly the spammer's resources.


Bayesian Filtering

Pros - does good job of sorting spam from legitimate e-mail. Widely distributed, with the core technology being free, and many client side versions are available. These technologies act as a supplement to Idalis-based technologies for spam without an identifiable point of contact.

Cons - "The Bayesian Effect," or endless game of cat and mouse. So long as an analysis filter can be broken or defeated, spammers will send to it. Algorithms cannot prove to the "spammer" that the spam is being deleted even if it is. Machine learning can delete wrongly reported good e-mail in the future (corpora poisoning). 100 percent accuracy requires the user to review all bulk e-mail (time loss) and also requires end user specific configurations (user difficulty).

It can not ruin spammers and has proven over the last 10 years to have a reverse negative effect on Internet e-mail. Too many variations in filters for "standardized" global effectiveness. The "Bayesian Effect" is the term given to the cause and effect relationship that happens when Bayesian or statistical filters are the primary technology used to combat spam and e-mail fraud. The Bayesian or Statistical filters actually generate more spam, since they allow what their creators term an 'acceptable' amount of spam to pass, which allows the spammer to still generate revenue. But in order to maintain revenue, the spammer has to send more spam, and that increased overall level of spam has a greater chance of making it into an inbox. This approach has been counterproductive and forces customer to purchase additional equipment, appliances, storage, and support to cover overhead.

Bayesian filters are only 93-95 percent accurate in detecting and deleting spam daily. Algorithms cannot guarantee a message will be deleted if previously detected, including the spammer's money-making characteristics.


Challenge Response

Pros - Stops mail from reaching inbox unless authorized or confirmed by the recipient. Works on server or client level.

Cons - Requires recipient administrative time for senders who won't or can't confirm their e-mail address (time loss). Takes sender twice as much time to send first contact e-mail message. Surveys show request for sender to confirm e-mail address is "intrusive". Difficult to receive confirmation emails from legitimate companies who send automated e-mail (must require end user review time). Some systems can be authorized with an auto responder bounce back. Confirms actual address and could allow address spoofing with commonly used addresses. Requires user review time. Impossible to implement Internet-wide. Generates high number of outgoing confirmation messages including those to spoofed accounts and has been widely criticized by industry analysts.

Sender Authentication

Pros - Will block all messages except those from authorized or white-listed senders and servers.

Cons - Like challenge response, sender authentication as a primary spam prevention technology places the majority of management and burden on the end users who must sort through hundreds or thousands of 'pending' messages in order to authorize the few good ones. This costs organizations enormous amounts of time and management expenses by relying on the user. Spoofed authorized senders can still hit inboxes, thus making this technology effectiveness on average 95 percent according to anti-spam industry analysts.


Message Signing (DKIM, SenderID)

Pros - Free to use from respected vendors.

Cons - Is already helping legitimize signed spam messages being rejected by Idalis Software (approximately 5 percent according to Idalis' statistics). Using another outbound mail server than the e-mail's domain would harm messages. Message signing cannot work for many .cgi forms or direct to MX mail forwarding. Vendors admit that reverse DNS checking cannot be the end-all to spam problem because of forging. Virus authors could use free available code to legitimize their infected messages and compromised servers based on the reverse DNS of the network. Message signing will only work for 90 percent of all internet e-mail.