Daniel Spies wrote:
> In my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to scan e-mail leaving the server.
> The recipient will never trust these tags anyway. So why scan at all? It's
> important to scan incoming mail, be it from a local or an external client.
I disagree.
Recipients may not trust the t
Hi there,
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Daniel Spies wrote:
In my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to scan e-mail leaving the
server.
Welcome to my permanent block list.
--
73,
Ged.
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
https://github.com/vrtad
On 2/22/2015 12:18 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Daniel Spies skrev den 2015-02-22 03:19:
>
>> Yes, but I have (still) enabled sending e-mail to port 25. This would
>> only work for submission (see my other e-mail).
>
> yes i remember that problem here aswell, so far i think postfix does
> not honn
On 22.02.15 03:13, Daniel Spies wrote:
In my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to scan e-mail leaving the
server.
why? What if your users get infected by something that starts sending spam,
phish, or private infos like credit card numbers?
sure it makes sense to scan outgoing mail.
The recipi
On 02/22/2015 10:08 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
Recipients may not trust the tags, but it *should* stop outbound spam/infected
mail should your machine (or one of the clients) get compromised. IMO spam and
malware is not just something to stop coming in, it's something to porevent
going out - if m
On 02/22/2015 07:13 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
sure it makes sense to scan outgoing mail.
Maybe in a company network, yes. But I don't care for the computers of
my clients -- these are their computers. *If* they get infected somehow,
I have measures to stop them from doing harm through
On 2/22/15 12:16 PM, Daniel Spies wrote:
On 02/22/2015 07:13 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
sure it makes sense to scan outgoing mail.
Maybe in a company network, yes. But I don't care for the computers of my
clients -- these are their computers. *If* they get infected somehow, I have
mea
On 02/22/2015 09:18 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
While I disagree with everything you've said I am glad you've spoken
out. My job would be far easier if everyone did so.
Could you be more precise? The quintessence of my last message was:
1. A company network is different, one has to care for the
On 2/22/15 12:32 PM, Daniel Spies wrote:
On 02/22/2015 09:18 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
While I disagree with everything you've said I am glad you've spoken
out. My job would be far easier if everyone did so.
Could you be more precise? The quintessence of my last message was:
1. A company net
OK, this is getting well off-topic for this list, this will be my final say on
the matter - and from some of the other comments I see I'm not alone in
considering you part of the problem.
Daniel Spies wrote:
>> Recipients may not trust the tags, but it *should* stop outbound
>> spam/infected
On 02/22/2015 10:43 PM, Simon Hobson wrote:
OK, this is getting well off-topic for this list, this will be my final say on
the matter
Agreed.
Which is one reason it's very important to make sure you are not part of the problem. Allowing a
customer to sent "nasties" through your mail server
11 matches
Mail list logo
