On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 14:18 +0200, Axb wrote:
> > why should we treat messagelabs any different, they are no more special > > than anyone else who connects to you. > > Depending on your user base, by blocking MessageLabs you'd miss LOTS of > corporate mail. A "man & his dog" setup may not see FPs from blocking > them, Anybody with a global user base will. > I guess its not used by many folk in this country. > Contacting them regarding their leaking clients would make sense. We tend to do that with big players in this neck of the woods, not so much for elsewhere, since most have useless track records for acting. > They are 100% whitehat - if any of their smarthosting customers have > issues, they see it gets corrected, fast. > I'm sure every network running a mail server would like to assume they are 100% whitehat too. I see no reason to treat them special, just like gmail who think they are above it all, I wont include hotmail in that, as they have always taken action and in a timely manor, YMMV of course, but, as another poster has made it known, it appears messagelabs dont have isolated incidents. I guess we'll have to agree to disgree on this one.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
