thus Daniel J McDonald spake: > On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 09:32 -0500, John Madden wrote: > >>>If they were running their systems properly we wouldn't be having this >>>conversation. The clients of those systems are able to retrieve mail and >>>attachments straight to local storage while by-passing local filters (and >>>policy). Not very different from browsing ftp sites in that regard, and >>>wholly unsecure. >> >>Right. Which means *your* security policy still must include desktop >>security by >>way of firewalls/virus scanning/proxies/policies/etc. An insecure public web >>mail >>system is irrelevant. > > > Maybe, but we have blocked > web-based-outside-e-mail-such-as-yahoo-or-msn-or-gmail-that-doesn't-use-our-MTA > > (Hopefully that is explicit enough for the nit-pickers who can't read > context)
rotfl -- hey, lame questions cause lame answers, and lame definitions lack every context. what you call context is the scenario inside your head which you didn't draw well to others (read: the things you *meant*, but didn't *write*). this has nothing to do with nit-picking. it's precision. and (your) lack of this leads to users violating the policy. it's as easy as this... > since right after the Melissa worm hit, what, 4 years ago? 5? > and haven't had a mass-mailing email worm inside since. So, a little > policy goes a long ways. > > Generally, before any of our users are silly enough to click on an web > page with a blended attack, the anti-virus companies have found it. And > we do have other protections in place. cheers, -- Timo Schoeler | http://macfinity.net/~tis | [EMAIL PROTECTED] //macfinity -- finest IT services | http://macfinity.net Key fingerprint = F844 51BE C22C F6BD 1196 90B2 EF68 C851 6E12 2D8A There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
