Oh yeah, there was one other thing. Since we'll be pointing both primary and secondary MXen to the MSP, I no longer will have to worry about script kiddies and nitwits hammering our SMTP servewr (not and Exchange box, but still a possible weakness). Only the MSP's MXen will be allowed to access port 25 on that server.
-- be - MOS The Tree of Learning bears the noblest fruit, but noble fruit tastes bad. > -----Original Message----- > From: East, Bill > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:27 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > We're starting a filtering service with a local MSP in a week or so. > > My reasoning came down to economies of scale. They can afford > to have a > guy watch the recipies full time and tweak them when the spam starts > coming through. They can afford to have someone watch the mailflow and > make sure that mailflow-in minus spam equals mailflow out. > And whatever > other companies are using the filtering service will help us by making > the filtering more efficient. > > I don't particularly worry about the filterer reading our mail; hell, > how bored would you have to be? And anyone at our ISP, or the > sender's, > can hook up a tap any time they want. > > -- > be - MOS > > "Earth is a great, big funhouse without the fun." > -- Jeff Berner > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:33 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > > > > I totally appreciate Paul's point of not wanting another > > potential delay > > that you can't control imposed but the data security aspect I don't > > understand. Email, if unencrypted, is insecure. > > > > If you are emailing something unencrypted outside your > > organisation you > > should assume it is public knowledge. I really don't see > that adding > > another handler makes any difference at all. It is by > > definition no longer > > "Company Insider" if you've sent it outside the company. > > > > Noone was suggesting that mail between internal sites > should be routed > > through this sort of service (Were they? Does anyone really have an > > internal Spam problem?) > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 23 December 2003 15:03 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > > Why would you want the control of your un-encrypted, > > completely open to > > reading, mission critical, company insider information, mail > > left to someone > > outside your control? > > > > Do yourself a great big favor by keeping it in house. > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the > > recipient or > > entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential > > information that > > is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the > > intended recipient, > > you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on > > it. If you have > > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > > immediately and > > delete from your system. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=& lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
