If you use LinkedIn (a popular business-oriented social networking
site), and utilize the feature to import your email contacts and send
connection requests to all of them, *please* un-check the mailing list
addresses... since apparently this has now been done twice...
-j antman
On 01/08/2013
Hey there.
We have been using Postini for a number of years as our anti-spam/anti-virus
protection for customer email accounts.
Mid last year we received a notice from Google that "In 2013, we plan to
transition your Postini services to Google Apps for Business."
As part of this notice
We got off Postini many years ago, and have never looked back..
We switched to Katharion, today they are known as GFI Max Mail,
Let me know if u are interested in switching, I will be more than happy to send
u the contact info for them.
Regards
Faisal
On Jan 8, 2013, at 8:51 AM, "Paul Stewart"
We're in the same boat as Paul and have been investigating McAfee Email
Protection (used to be MX Logic). A bit more expensive than Postini, but
also more full featured. Additional options can be added on as well,
like archiving & outbound encryption.
We've thought about deploying a virtual ap
I am an enterprise guy, but we've been running MS Forefront Online
Protection for Exchange for a number of years with very few issues (that
aren't determined by flags/polices we've set). The few issues that we
have had have been with delayed SMTP handoffs between Hostopia (Bell's
backend provider)
Hi,
What we do nowadays as some workaround, is configuring a default route towards
a core router on 8 x 10G before maintaining an MX box. Which will be installed
before BGP sessions come up, this will cause some packet loss during burst hour
outages but is fine during maintenance hours.
I've
- Forwarded message from Lauren Weinstein -
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:35:59 -0800
> From: Lauren Weinstein
> To: nnsq...@nnsquad.org
> Subject: [ NNSquad ] Mark Crispin - MRC - Inventor of IMAP and a friend for
> decades, has died at 56
>
> Mark Crispin - MRC - Inventor of IMAP a
I used to work for Postini, but have long since lost touch with pretty
much everyone there. I'm actually surprised this didn't happen sooner.
When Google bought them (what, over 5 years now?), it seemed fairly
obvious they were going to be integrating them into their own email
offerings. The lack o
We use mailfoundry internally ourselves, but I have a customer who has been
raving about mimecast for years and I am on the verge of switching over to them.
Thanks
Sameer
-Original Message-
From: Erik Soosalu [mailto:erik.soos...@calyxinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:27 AM
To
Not exactly a nanog subject but I would like to know if there is a
(ideally) locally owned ISP in LA that's knowledgeable, for DSL service.
Something like cruzio in Santa Cruz. Trying to avoid the big ones such
as AT&T and comcast.
Thanks,
Jeroen
--
Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0
Date: Tuesday, Ja
Hey Jeroen,
Hope all is well. I use to work as a network engineer at a regional ISP
based out in LA - Bel Air Internet. Feel free to unicast me if you have any
questions.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Not exactly a nanog subject but I would like to know if there is a
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that there's no legitimate circumstance for
mem...@linkedin.com
to be sending to nanog@nanog.org.
Couldn't the list be taught to filter these?
Owen
On Jan 8, 2013, at 05:21 , Jason Antman wrote:
> If you use LinkedIn (a popular business-oriented social netwo
Hello all,
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that there's no legitimate circumstance
> for mem...@linkedin.com
> to be sending to nanog@nanog.org.
>
> Couldn't the list be taught to filter these?
>
> Owen
>
Since this seems to be causing eve
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:52:18PM +, Alex Brooks wrote:
> I've just had a reply saying that nanog
> nanog.org has been added to their "do not contact" list. That means,
> assuming their processes work, the address will no longer receive any
> emails from LinkedIn or their members though Linke
But what will we complain about now???
Thanks for doing that Alex. We'll see if it works.
Cheers,
Joshua
On Jan 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Alex Brooks
mailto:askoorb+na...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Hello all,
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Owen DeLong
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
I could be wrong,
On 09/01/13 09:21, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:52:18PM +, Alex Brooks wrote:
>> I've just had a reply saying that nanog
>> nanog.org has been added to their "do not contact" list. That means,
>> assuming their processes work, the address will no longer receive any
>> emai
NANOG community,
As those of you who were able to attend one of the last couple of NANOG
membership meetings know, the education committee is exploring the idea of
adding a professional instructor-led class to the NANOG conference, not unlike
you might find with the tutorials available at Inter
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:45:10PM +0100, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What we do nowadays as some workaround, is configuring a default route
> towards a core router on 8 x 10G before maintaining an MX box. Which
> will be installed before BGP sessions come up, this will cause some
> packet
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> PR 836197
That looks like a spanking new PR number to me.
The highest PR number I found in 12.2 release notes was 82.
Rather strange that they didn't have an earlier PR number, while the
issue has existed for such a long ti
On 8 January 2013 12:29, Mark Foster wrote:
> I'm amazed that the NANOG mailing list doesn't simply reject email from
> non-subscribed addresses. I didn't realise that this was so difficult,
> considering it's an out-of-box Mailman feature to be able to arrange
> exactly that.
I think they're su
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:10:16PM +0100, bas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Richard A Steenbergen
> wrote:
> > PR 836197
>
> That looks like a spanking new PR number to me.
> The highest PR number I found in 12.2 release notes was 82.
> Rather strange that they didn't ha
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Foster"
> I'm amazed that the NANOG mailing list doesn't simply reject email from
> non-subscribed addresses. I didn't realise that this was so difficult,
> considering it's an out-of-box Mailman feature to be able to arrange
> exactly that.
In fact, fo
22 matches
Mail list logo
