On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 09:19:51PM -0500, John Jolet wrote:
> We, in fact, have smtp outbound blocked for ALL but our mail servers, for
> that very reason. With the notable exception of our network monitoring box
> and the 3 or 4 outbound smtp servers, nothing can send mail out without
> passing t
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 05:41:11PM -0500, McKeever Chris wrote:
> ---
> Chris McKeever
> If you want to reply directly to me, please use cgmckeever--at--prupref---dot---com
> http://www.prupref.com
> Prudential Preferred Properties
> Chicago and Illinois Nort
---
Chris McKeever
If you want to reply directly to me, please use cgmckeever--at--prupref---dot---com
http://www.prupref.com
Prudential Preferred Properties
Chicago and Illinois NorthShore Real Estate Experts
On Sun, 16 May 2004 13:42 , Eric Becker <[EMAIL
Eric Becker wrote:
Well - in this case it was definitely from outside - and the >proxy I
wrote and use passes all email, internal or external, >through clam and
?spam assassin and a bunch of custom rules... but thanks >:-)
Well depending on the virus, it may be sending emails from it's own sm
>Well - in this case it was definitely from outside - and the >proxy I
>wrote and use passes all email, internal or external, >through clam and
?spam assassin and a bunch of custom rules... but thanks >:-)
Well depending on the virus, it may be sending emails from it's own smtp
engine and not to
McKeever Chris wrote:
one thing that I noticed/learned was that if a users machines sends an email internally (ie a virus), it misses the clam-mail-gateway and goes
right to the mailserver, hence avoiding clam (I have since denied all hosts to the mailserver other than the mail-gateway to stop thi
one thing that I noticed/learned was that if a users machines sends an email
internally (ie a virus), it misses the clam-mail-gateway and goes
right to the mailserver, hence avoiding clam (I have since denied all hosts to the
mailserver other than the mail-gateway to stop this)...so in a
long-r
On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 02:26, Steven P. Donegan wrote:
> This was a first for me - ClamAV has been - well about as perfect as any
> software could be - today one sneaked by that Norton/Symantec caught.
>
I've only seen it twice recently..
One was a damaged Netsky/SomeFool that only Symantecs signa
This was a first for me - ClamAV has been - well about as perfect as any
software could be - today one sneaked by that Norton/Symantec caught.
Anyone else seen this - I prefer my first line of defense (ClamAV on the
server) catches everything andf the desktop stuff gets bored
-
