I have seen that "work-around" published on the list before, yet
I don't see why I would want to introduce the additional risk of IIS on
our system plus an additional port opened through our firewall. This is
a dedicated mail machine, there's no point in running IIS on a product
that has it's own mail web interface.
While I still feel that the best approach for IPSwitch is to get
away from their proprietory Web interface (if it can't handle a code-red
request every 2-3 minutes, which BTW I hardly classify as a DOS attack)
and use IIS with ASP (or better yet, PHP so it can be served reliably
from *nix based systems as well). It's becoming more and more clear
that the Web messaging service has serious limitations for service
providers or any company that allow access to the interface over
internet (which is what I thought it's purpose was).
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: John Tolmachoff [mailto:jtimail@;reliance.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] IWEBMSG: 'no action has been taken'
I have seen mention on this forum before of a suggestion to run IIS on
port 80 and set up a .asp page that does a redirect to the off port that
you set for Imail. The thought behind this is IIS is much stronger to
handle code red attacks and such.
If you search the archives, I am sure you will be able to find it, or
someone might post more information about that redirect.
John Tolmachoff
IT Manager, Network Engineer
RelianceSoft, Inc.
Fullerton, CA 92835
www.reliancesoft.com
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
