Dennis Peterson wrote:
My webmail is configured to use our standard smtp servers for all
inbound/outbound mail. It really isn't all that difficult.
I think they mean webmail systems that are not on your network and that
you don't manage. i.e. Hotmail.
_
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On May 5, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
This is actually two separate scenarios.
That was Daniel's fault instigated by his being vague :)
"Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he
would know that only a great
>
> "Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he
> would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I
> am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of
> you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have
> c
On May 5, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
This is actually two separate scenarios.
That was Daniel's fault instigated by his being vague :)
"Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he
would know that only a great fool would reach for what
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 tra
On May 5, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
My webmail is configured to use our standard smtp servers for all
inbound/outbound mail. It really isn't all that difficult.
My understanding was that we were talking about people accessing Yahoo
or Hotmail from work, not you
this Dennis Peterson spake:
> Todd Lyons said:
>
>>Matt Fretwell wanted us to know:
>>
>>
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
>>>able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of (creation|submission)
Todd Lyons said:
> Matt Fretwell wanted us to know:
>
>>> as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
>> Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
>>able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of (creation|submission)
>>method.
>
> Nonsense. A user clicks on
Matt Fretwell wanted us to know:
>> as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
> Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
>able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of (creation|submission)
>method.
Nonsense. A user clicks on a webmail message, opens th
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 lo
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> 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)
Explicit, but terrible punctuation :)
Matt
___
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Very true - but policy is far less expensive than new hardware, and
> there are no licensing fees. I'd have to see the business reason to go
> there.
The one business reason I can think of offhand, which is irrespective of
any other consideration, is stupidity. People ig
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). No
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> > My webmail is configured to use our standard smtp servers for all
> > inbound/outbound mail. It really isn't all that difficult.
>
> My understanding was that we were talking about people accessing Yahoo
> or Hotmail from work, not your own internal mail servers with
Matt Fretwell said:
> Dennis Peterson 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 diff
> 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
>
thus Matt Fretwell spake:
> Dennis Peterson 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 ver
On May 5, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Bart Silverstrim said:
On May 5, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should
be
able to cope with all types
Dennis Peterson 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 sit
John Madden said:
>>> Exactly. Whatever numpty would have a web based application sending
>>> mail
>>> directly, bypassing your smtp,
>>
>> Yahoo, gmail, etc
>
> (No, their web mail applications work as they're supposed to, sending mail
> to
> their pool of MTA's.)
>
If they were running thei
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> Right, so they should be blocked.
The likes of those webmail systems are no worse that admins who do not
configure their outgoing smtp to scan for virii. An outbreak can originate
from any poorly configured mail system, regardless of type.
> Did you read the original
>> Exactly. Whatever numpty would have a web based application sending mail
>> directly, bypassing your smtp,
>
> Yahoo, gmail, etc
(No, their web mail applications work as they're supposed to, sending mail to
their pool of MTA's.)
--
John Madden
UNIX Systems Engineer
Ivy Tech State Coll
Matt Fretwell said:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
>> >>> as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should
>> >be> able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
>> >> (creation|submission)
>> >> method.
>> >
>> > But
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 14:51 +0100, Matt Fretwell wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
> > >>> as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
> > >>
> > >> Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should
> > >be> able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
> > >> (creati
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> >>> as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should
> >be> able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
> >> (creation|submission)
> >> method.
> >
> > But...if they're using webmail, it
thus Dennis Peterson spake:
> Bart Silverstrim said:
>
>>On May 5, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
>>>able to cope w
Bart Silverstrim said:
>
> On May 5, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
>
>> Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
>>
>> Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
>> able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
>> (
thus Daniel J McDonald spake:
> On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 14:12 +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>
>>thus Daniel J McDonald spake:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:24 +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Man that never gets old. haha
On May 5, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
(creation|submission)
method.
But...if they're usin
thus Matt Fretwell spake:
> Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>
>
>>as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
>
>
> Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
> able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of (creation|submission)
> method.
partly agreed. if the
thus Randal, Phil spake:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:24 +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
I have no control over this warning.
>>>
>>>Yes you do. Us
thus Daniel J McDonald spake:
> On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:24 +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
>>>
>>>I have no control over this warning.
>>
>>Yes you do. Use a hotmail/yahoo/gmail account.
Slightly off topic, but has anyone noticed some numpty, (mentioning no
names), replying to their posts with a test message?
Matt
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> At our company, all webmail is blocked and policy forbids it's use, as
> it is harder to scan those messages for viruses (and the last time we
> got hit by a mass-mailing worm - Melisa - was due to a person using
> web-mail.)
We still sell Unix shell
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of (creation|submission)
method.
Matt
___
http://lurke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:24 +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
>> On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
>>>
>>> I have no control over this warning.
>>
>> Yes you do. Use a hotmail/yahoo/gmail account.
>
>
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:24 +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
> >
> > I have no control over this warning.
>
> Yes you do. Use a hotmail/yahoo/gmail account.
At our company, all webmail is blo
Bart Silverstrim said:
>
> I've always wondered...why do people put confidentiality notices saying
> "if this is not meant for you, erase it, yadda yadda..." at the END of
> the message, so you already know what you're not supposed to know?
>
> I mean, they do know that these "disclaimers" haven't
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On May 4, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or fax
But you haven't given your telephone and fax number, so how can you
On May 4, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or
fax
But you haven't given your telephone and fax number, so how can you
expect
anyone to do th
On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:15:40 +0200 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Timo Schoeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But you haven't given your telephone and fax number, so how can you
> > expect anyone to do that?
>
> sometimes i think lawyers must be screaming of pain (caused by their
> stupidity/silliness
Nigel,
Unfortunately, we have web surfing policies that watch total usage. Though
it is valid, it is not worth mentioning. With the mailing list being so
active I could miss out on alot of threads and great information..
Gord
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: The information in the e:mail is confidentia
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
>
> I have no control over this warning.
Yes you do. Use a hotmail/yahoo/gmail account.
--
Nigel Horne. Arranger, Composer, Typesetter.
NJH Music, Barnsley, UK. ICQ#20252325
[EMAIL PROTE
Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
I have no control over this warning.
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: The information in the e:mail is confidential and
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity it
is addressed to. If the reader of this message is not the
thus Nigel Horne spake:
> On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>. If you have received this
>>communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or fax
>
>
> But you haven't given your telephone and fax number, so how can you expect
> anyone to do that?
so
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or fax
But you haven't given your telephone and fax number, so how can you expect
anyone to do that?
--
Nigel Horne. Arranger, Composer, Typ
Joe,
Thanks for the problem resolution. I was in the same boat and I made both
DatabaseDirectory directive in the freshclam.conf and clamd.conf the same.
I then restarted clam and checked the version, all is good. I then checked
the logs and clam caught 10 Worm.Sober.P in 3 minutes.
Thanks,
Go
On May 4, 2005, at 9:09 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
From: Joe Kletch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am still not catching this one on two of my four servers. Any
pointers to troubleshooting will be immediately pursued.
Data from one that doesn't work:
Definitions are current:
mail joe $ freshclam
ClamAV u
* Joe Kletch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-04 16:07]:
> I am still not catching this one on two of my four servers. Any
> pointers to troubleshooting will be immediately pursued.
Some look like W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (by McAfee):
http://vil.mcafeesecurity.com/vil/content/v_132158.htm
~/virus > cl
From: Joe Kletch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I am still not catching this one on two of my four servers. Any
> pointers to troubleshooting will be immediately pursued.
>
> Data from one that doesn't work:
>
> Definitions are current:
> mail joe $ freshclam
> ClamAV update process started at W
On Wed, 4 May 2005 09:00:41 -0500
Joe Kletch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yet clamscan does not:
> mail joe $ clamscan account_info-text.zip
> account_info-text.zip: OK
>
> Nor does clamdscan:
> mail joe $ clamdscan account_info-text.zip
> /usr/home/joe/account_info-text.zip: OK
>
> ---
I am still not catching this one on two of my four servers. Any
pointers to troubleshooting will be immediately pursued.
Data from one that doesn't work:
Definitions are current:
mail joe $ freshclam
ClamAV update process started at Wed May 4 08:27:53 2005
main.cvd is up to date (version: 31, si
52 matches
Mail list logo
