Messaging Gateway

Does any one have any experience with both of these products? I am interested in the advantages of the Brightmail solution.

Actually I think your question might be a little outdated. Ironport and Brightmail now work together in a single email security solution. Actually, Ironport liscenced brightmail’s filerting software so good news! Best of both worlds!

Regards,

Mike

The Brightmail Messaging Gateway is most effective from cisco ironport, Ironport have a lot of false positive, and is more expensive

Just to note that the comment from mike1976 is incorrect, Ironport have not had the option to OEM Symantec Brightmail Anti-Spam software on their appliance since Symantec began offering an email security appliance - see http://www.symantec.com/messaging-gateway

@Ladan , I never compared Brightmail with Iron port ,instead I was using Iron Mail and I transferred to Bright mail and trust me , I am much happier than before .I had two appliances for Iron mail and I had to modify config on each of them separately .In Ironmail ,t was difficult to find if a user is member of certain groups but it is much easier in Brightmail ( Now called SMG) .In SMG ,COnfiguration and reporting is centralized from one Control Center . Policies and controls are easier to Implement . In short , SMG is simpler to manage yet effective for Compliance and Spam Control  . Let me know if you have some specific questions .

i have used both and barracuda in my time, i prefer SMG.

The Forrester Wave™: Email Content
Security, Q4 2012   Nov 15 2012

http://www.computerlinks.de/FMS/22423.the_forrester_wave_email_content_security.pdf

supports great integration with DLP

it lookedd at all of these Barracuda Networks, Cisco,
McAfee, Proofpoint, Sophos, Symantec, Trend Micro, Trustwave, and Websense.

I have used both and IronPort is much better.  We have seen the amount of Spam go way down(on Brightmail 85% Spam caught, Ironport 92% Spam caught).  Plus the rule creation is much easier and I think more efffective.  Once the system is configured and your rules are setup, it's pretty much forget about it.

With Symantec, we were always in "tweaking" rules because it would catch something that it shouldn't.  The only place where Symantec does excel is in the True-Type file checking.  I liked Symantec's engine for this.  IronPort's engine needs some improvement.  But with a few rule modifications, we are working the same as Symantec.

Upgrades are much easier.  Click the button to download, answer yes to continue and in 10 min, the upgrade is done.  Never have had a problem with an upgrade corrupting the DB like we did with Symantec. 

It's all a matter of what you're comfortable with.  I would recommend seeing a demo of both and decide.