That's the law in California. But please don't move here. There are too many people already. Except Redding. You can move there.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Blunt, James H (Jim) Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Personally, you can smoke in bars all you want...I don't go to bars, so I don't care. Smoking in restaurants however, is something I am vehemently against. Wanna know why? I'm alleric to cigarette smoke. I choke up and can't breath and I won't frequent restaurants that let people smoke inside. Not only that, but smokers NEVER smoke during their own meal, because they have so little sense of taste left, that to do so would interfere with them being able to enjoy their meal. But they have no problem with ruining someone else's meal by blowing smoke all over them while they're trying to eat. Double yuck and good riddance! -----Original Message----- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:MBlackstone@;superioraccess.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Lets talk about something else like making it illegal to smoke in restaurants or bars.... -----Original Message----- From: Andy David [mailto:davida@;vss.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Caution: Thread is hot. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff@;messageone.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's At no time have I said that companies can't choose to implement RBLs; simply that they should be cognizant of the complete ramifications of the technology. Obtaining this level of understanding is a much better example of risk management than some theoretical defense against a "risk" which appears to have no foundation in reality. Please don't use the McDonalds lawsuit as some type of example of the legal system gone bezerk. If you actually understood the history of the case, you'd find that the judgment itself was well within the bounds of reason, even if the monetary damages awarded appear to be a bit shocking. > -----Original Message----- > From: Finch Brett [mailto:brett.finch@;hrs.ualberta.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > 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] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. ======================================================================== ==== == _________________________________________________________________ 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]
