On 02/24/2010 11:40 PM, Jason Brower wrote:
> (: I let this conversation sit over night and this happens. :P
> Thanks for the lively conversation. It seems then, that my ISP is doing
> this some how. I don't have any amavisd.conf and don't have what ever
> that is, installed. That's where google
On 2/25/10 6:09 AM, Steven Stern wrote:
If you're sending mail directly from your client to Google's SMTP
servers, your ISP isn't touching it as the connection to Google is
encrypted. What are you using for an SMTP server? For example, I'm
typing this in Thunderbird and the smtp server for th
I am using my local ISP's pop accounts.
Best Regards,
Jason Brower
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 08:09 -0600, Steven Stern wrote:
> On 02/24/2010 11:40 PM, Jason Brower wrote:
> > (: I let this conversation sit over night and this happens. :P
> > Thanks for the lively conversation. It seems then, that m
Jerry wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:33:09 -0500
Kris Deugau articulated:
Steven Stern wrote:
Checking outgoing mail is pointless. Why bother?
So you can reduce malware propagation? (And as a result, maybe not
end up on everyone's local blacklist for spewing garbage...)
It is still pointl
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:33:15 -0500
Kris Deugau articulated:
> Jerry wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:33:09 -0500
> > Kris Deugau articulated:
> >
> >> Steven Stern wrote:
> >>> Checking outgoing mail is pointless. Why bother?
> >> So you can reduce malware propagation? (And as a result, mayb
Jerry wrote:
>
> Lets take this from the top.
>
> You, and other advocates of enforced screening of sent e-mail are
> assuming that all individuals who send e-mail would abide by that
> edict. Obviously you know that is a false assumption. Spammers
> obviously would not adhere to that edict; nor wo
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:40:13 -0500
Bowie Bailey articulated:
> Abide by what edict? Email marked as containing a virus is simply
> rejected. If a spammer or bot wishes to send out viruses from my
> network, they'll have to bypass my MTA to do it, which is more
> difficult since very few machine
Well, this thread has gone on long enough that I'll throw in my comments
too! LOL
I have a few clients that are small ISP's. They scan all email in and out
of their mail servers; just in case one of their clients ends up sending out
viruses or malware - likely as a result of the client syste
(FWIW, the original inverse question/argument was about blindly
accepting third-party claims that something was clean; I responded
noting that I would [mostly] happily trust third-party claims that
something *wasn't* clean.)
Jerry wrote:
Lets take this from the top.
You, and other advocates
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:15:49PM -0500, Jerry said:
> You should be using SMTP Authentication, irregardless of what port is
> being accessed which would stop virtually all unauthorized
> transmissions. If you don't know how to do that, ask or Google it. I am
> really interested in how a Spammer i
Jerry wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:40:13 -0500
Bowie Bailey articulated:
Abide by what edict? Email marked as containing a virus is simply
rejected. If a spammer or bot wishes to send out viruses from my
network, they'll have to bypass my MTA to do it, which is more
difficult since very few
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 22:15 -0500, Jerry wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:40:13 -0500
> Bowie Bailey articulated:
>
> > Abide by what edict? Email marked as containing a virus is simply
> > rejected. If a spammer or bot wishes to send out viruses from my
> > network, they'll have to bypass my MT
On Feb 25, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Jerry wrote:
> Lets take this from the top.
[ ... ]
The morgue is getting full of flogged-to-death horses and slain strawman
arguments. Please stop.
--
-Chuck
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://
13 matches
Mail list logo
