What benefits does Orf 5.1 have over Exchange 2010's builtin spam filter? - ORF Forums

What benefits does Orf 5.1 have over Exchange 2010's builtin spam filter? RSS Back to forum


The title says it all. I was just wondering why I would continue with ORF.


by jean.davis 6 years ago

@jean.davis: well, if the built-in spam filtering features of Exchange had been sufficient in the ongoing battle against spam, we would have gone out of business a long time ago :) Exchange is a mail server software: it has some really nice anti-spam features, but spam filtering has never been its primary function. On the other hand, ORF was designed to filter spam, and it does the job exceptionally well. Though there is some overlap in the functionality of ORF and the anti-spam features of Exchange, it offers many additional tests (e.g., Exchange lacks SURBL functionality if I'm not mistaken) and/or simply does them better.

For example, the spam filtering of Exchange is triggered at the End of DATA (EOD) phase of the SMTP transport, while ORF can run most of its test before the email has arrived (Before Arrival filtering). This takes a significant load off your server. Its logs are easy to read and filter using the Log Viewer tool, so you can find out what happened to an email within a matter of seconds. Setting up rules and maintaining its configuration is way easier using the Administration Tool, compared to the configuration of Exchange anti-spam rules.

Exchange works with probability scores (SCL) and thresholds, while ORF makes a clear decision whether an incoming email is spam or not. False positives are a non-issue, thanks to the Auto Sender Whitelist functionality. If configured properly (as per described in our Best Practices Guide: http://vamsoft.com/r?o-best-practices), it can catch 94-99% of spam with zero false positives and with a very low maintenance overhead.

For a more detailed technical overview, please visit


If you have any questions regarding a feature in particular, I am at your service.

by Krisztián Fekete (Vamsoft) 6 years ago
(in reply to this post)


Sounds good. Thanks for the explanation.

Sorry, I had to get something to explain to my bosses and I didn't have many facts in either arena. :)

by jean.davis 6 years ago

One question; Have you ever had to find out, why an email was rejected within the Exchange logfiles (tracking logs, pipelinging logs aso)? If so, you wouldn't ask the question. ;)
ORF has a ton of nice Features, which are way better implemented than those of Exchange antispam only and some more (like greylisting) which doesn't exist in Exchange.
So if you like to be able to tell if or when an email was rejected or passed through your spamfilter and want one of the best spamfilter products, that I know, I wouldn't even think about investing in ORF Fusion.
Nonetheless, you can combine Exchange's Content filter with the Connection filters of ORF and get the best of both worlds. ;)


by NorbertFe 6 years ago

@NorbertFe: I use Orf 4 right now on Exchange 2003. Just implementing Exchange 2010 and saw the spam filter builtin so was wondering what benefits it did or did not have over our current orf.

After hearing from both of you its evident that it is a basic function. I hadn't played with it yet, so wanted to know before I installed either.

ORF 5 looks like its a hell of lot better than ORF 4.

Thanks guys.

by jean.davis 6 years ago
(in reply to this post)


Exchange 2003 had more or less the same Antispamcapabilities as Exchange 2010 has. So I don't understand your Argument. ;)


by NorbertFe 6 years ago

New comment

Fill in the form below to add a new comment. All fields are required. If you are a registered user on our site, please sign in first.

It will not be published.
hnp1 | hnp2