> In the short term the real problem is probably a lack of low cost
> routers that even permit outbound blocking, or are sophisticated enough
> to block all but a certain IP address for outbound. I'm not aware of
> any
> "broadband" router appliances that can do this, but for most home
> users,
> w
On Oct 23, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
From: Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(I can't block senders just because they don't have reverse DNS
configured, or because forward and reverse DNS does not match.)
Chuck,
Yes you can block them if they don't have a revers DNS. No you
sh
Chuck Swiger wrote:
Tom Metro wrote:
Is there really much practical value to outbound scanning?
Yes. I've seen employees download viral mail from some other service
(AOL, fastmail.fm, gmail, whatever) to their corporate desktop, get
infected, and have their machine start spewing malicious e
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>(I can't block senders just because they don't have reverse DNS
>configured, or because forward and reverse DNS does not match.)
Chuck,
Yes you can block them if they don't have a revers DNS. No you shouldn't
block them if the
On Oct 23, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Gerard Seibert wrote:
It doesn't stop all potential problems with outbound email from your
domain, but together with adding SPF records and using a firewall to
block outbound port 25 except from your legitimate mail relay, you
can do a lot to keep your domain from co
On Monday October 23, 2006 at 01:20:54 (PM) Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
> [ ...heated debate aside :-), these questions are interesting... ]
> > Is there really much practical value to outbound scanning?
>
> Yes. I've seen employees download viral mail fr
On Oct 22, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
[ ...heated debate aside :-), these questions are interesting... ]
Is there really much practical value to outbound scanning?
Yes. I've seen employees download viral mail from some other service
(AOL, fastmail.fm, gmail, whatever) to their corpo
Don Russell wrote:
> Tom Metro wrote:
>> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> Gerard Seibert wrote:
>>>
...I am not particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail.
>>> Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail
>>> from you.
>
> That makes me think of two things:
>
Tom Metro wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Gerard Seibert wrote:
>>> ...I am not particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail.
>> Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail
>> from you.
>
> Is there really much practical value to outbound scanning? Isn't the
> vast
Tom Metro wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
>> Gerard Seibert wrote:
>>
>>> ...I am not particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail.
>>>
>> Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail from
>> you.
That makes me think of two things:
1 - The corollary to
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:50:12AM -0400, Tom Metro wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > Gerard Seibert wrote:
> >> ...I am not particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail.
> >
> > Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail from
> > you.
>
> For any small shop that ke
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Gerard Seibert wrote:
>> ...I am not particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail.
>
> Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail from
> you.
Is there really much practical value to outbound scanning? Isn't the
vast majority of viruses and spa
12 matches
Mail list logo
