I agree with the facts in your short version. Still gripes me to have somebody recover for their own stupidity, however.
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:Ken.Cornetet@;kimball.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's The McDonalds coffee incident is typical of how the media grabs a story and presents only the sensationalized aspect of it ( "Insane law system gives awards woman for being burned by hot coffee!"). There's quite a bit more to this story than what was ever presented. Short version: 1. McDonalds served their coffee at 180 degrees Fahrenheit, even though they knew the food industry standards say no more than 140 degrees - specifically because of the danger involved. They did this claiming that customers purchased coffee to drink when they got to where they were going - not on the way, and thus needed to be hotter to stay hot longer. 2. McDonalds had been sued many times before over people being burned by their coffee. They deemed it cheaper in the long run to simply pay the people large sums of money with the stipulation that they keep their mouths shut. 3. The woman was not just burned - she was scalded. She required months of hospitalization and numerous skin grafts to the leg and crotch area (ouch!). 4. She initially turned down McDonalds hush money offer and took the story public hoping to prevent anyone else from going through what she went through. However, after being made a laughing stock by the media, and being presented an even larger offer by McDonalds, she caved and took the money. Long version: Left as an exercise to the reader. Refer to your web search tool of choice. -----Original Message----- From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch@;hrs.ualberta.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Can you say 'risk management'. If someone can drive up to a window, order a coffee then take the lid off, drive over a speed bump and sue someone else, anything is possible :) -----Original Message----- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff@;messageone.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 21:20 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I've never heard of a single instance where a lawsuit was initiated against an organization based on incoming *spam*. Can you point to one? I can point to deals which didn't get done because of RBLs which resulted in real monetary loss, which would seem to make one more likely than the other unless you can point to a court case I'm not aware of. Matt's "client side" could technically be much different from a normal organization since his firm provides hosting to businesses (clients) who have their own users (another type of client). There are plenty of examples of server based filtering based on individual user settings which could potentially meet his objective and address your objection. Most of those solutions are poorly done IMNSHO. RBLs in general aren't content filtering solutions, they are connection filtering solutions. While they may at some level achieve similar results, their objectives are actually quite different. > -----Original Message----- > From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch@;hrs.ualberta.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I've watched this thread for a while. I don't buy the argument that a > ten million deal will fail because of a bounced email via RBL. It's > just as likely that a dept. with predominant females could sue for > fifteen million for sexual harassment in the fact the company with the > ten million dollar deal didn't take reasonable steps to protect them > from this spam. There also seems to be no argument about the value of > email in the workplace and that a business may find they loose a ten > thousand dollar deal but save fifteen thousand in the fact their > people are actually doing what they were hired to > do (as mentioned in other posts bandwidth costs, storage costs as well). > As > for the per client configuration, that works until they start adding their > contacts to the junk list or they log into a Terminal Server or via > wireless > with a PDA. We also don't hire people based on their skills to manage > their > email. Finding a moderate RBL with reasonable rules and sending a nice > e-mail back to a would be spammer seems to work as well as anything. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin@;natco-inc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:49 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: RBL's > > > Very true..We have hosted exchange for business and we get the sh-t > spammed out of us. But we do not block any email! That may change as > our customers are complaining bitterly. The best solution we would > like is a filter on the client side and not the server side. MacAfee > spam kill product looks nice but I do not know if it can talk to > Exchange server. (not POP) I just felt we started something ugly on > this list!!:) Wanted to clarify why we were interested. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff@;messageone.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: RBL's > > > And in general, the business needs of a firm providing free web based > e-mail, vs. the business needs of a Fortune 500 company are a tad > different. So are the usage patterns and a host of other factors. My > only comment about RBLs as it related to your question (not being > defensive, just reiterating for those who might have lost track) was > that I hoped Microsoft would not integrate RBL functionality directly > into the Exchange product because I felt that such solutions were best > left to 3rd party vendors... and then proceeded to mention a couple of > reasons why I thought this to be true. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin@;natco-inc.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > I originally questioned about RBL's for exchange because we host a > > large .com whose main stay of business is free web based email. They > > have 100k plus users and get spammed to death. We have content > > filtering tools, we can blacklist known spammers, and we can even > > shut down ip's at the router. They still get spammed to death > > hurting their service. Customers complain. The owner of this .com > > asked us to use spamcop. Since enlisting spam cop 100's of thousands > > emails are now refused a day!! All of the users were notified of the > > use of spamcop and were told to report > any > > emails that should have gotten thru. It has been 3 months now and > > one reported email that should have gotten thru did not. Our > > customer is happy, his users are happy and we spend a lot less time > > tracking spammers. Our servers are happy, our sans are happy, I'm > > happy. Oh our bandwidth is happy also!! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:esojka@;NBME.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: RBL's > > > > > > "You following remark ... Seems to say" ? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william@;techsanctuary.org] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:26 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: RBL's > > > > > > > > > "depsite it's poor grammar" ? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Walsh, > > > Ric > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:52 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: RBL's > > > > > > > > > Ok your "spelling" remark was rude to all of us. > > > > > > You following remark despite it's poor grammar seems to say that > > > the rest of us are dumber that you. I'd have to say that it was > > > ALL rude. > > > > > > Ric Walsh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Walsh, Ric > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 10:32 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: RBL's > > > > > > > > Ok what makes you such a wizard? Also add the word rude to > > > that. Have > > > you > > > > though of taking an anger management class? > > > > > > > > Ric Walsh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
