Bart Silverstrim wrote: > This is actually two separate scenarios.
That was Daniel's fault instigated by his being vague :) > To which someone replied that in a *PROPER* network that is *well > managed* this isn't a worry because we block all external mail hosts > and use a proxy for web traffic that tests content going over it for > malware, in addition to virus scanning desktops and servers and <misc. > that I'm probably forgetting but whose tone seemed to suggest that > everyone who doesn't lock down everything as tight as a snare drum head > is incompetent at their job as network techs> That was I :) > to which in my head I dreamed a few moments about what it would be like > to be a true BOFH on our network and have the power...political > power...to get away with locking people out of their favorite web sites > despite outranking me in the org chart and what it would be like to not > have to deal with the politics of XYZ not being able to get their > content completely rendered because of some glitch of interaction > between the proxy and scanner and the website they're trying to get > forms from. Ahhh to dream a little dream! Tell the accountants they can save money by locking down a network. You would be amazed how quickly things happen :) Plus, they get all the stick from irate users|management :) Matt _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
