Very well put, Pete!! Thanks for articulating what I was thinking. Advice is always an opinion, which the recipient should interpret in the context of their own situation. If someone gives advice and you have a differing opinion, then write "I disagree" or "I think this would be better" and explain your advice.
And contrary to your beliefs, Len, you're not always "right". As useful as I find your advice, I do find that in some situations, it doesn't work for me. Todd Holt Xidix Technologies, Inc Las Vegas, NV USA www.xidix.com 702.319.4349 > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:IMail_Forum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] WTF? > > Hopefully this thread can be stopped before it really gets going. > > Scott Said: > > |>That you know of. :) > | > > Len Said: > > |FUD. He knows what he knows, and his IMGate is not a disaster > |or wildly > |blocking tons of legit mail, or he nor anybody else would be using it. > > Pete (madscientist says): > > People used to think smoking was not harmful because they didn't know > and because salesmen told them it was not harmful. > > Once upon a time asbestos was supposed to be a new wonder material - > people didn't know. > > My point is not to paint Len in a bad light here - only to point out > that what you don't know can hurt you. > > Nobody said that IMGate was blocking "tons" of legitimate email - only > that there are aspects of it's operating principles which can be > problematic and would be significantly so if there were a large scale > deployment. > > What Scott is saying is not FUD but fact: Rejecting messages based on a > single test - even a very good one - is more risky than using a balanced > approach. Rejecting messages in a way that prevents any further analysis > (other than a record that the event occurred) increases the risk that > legitimate messages will be rejected without detection. Even on systems > that accept messages for analysis and use the most comprehensive test > structures false positive detection is far from sensitive enough in most > cases. > > Not knowing can and does cause people to do harmful things without > realizing the rammifications. > > "That you know of" is a perfectly reasonable, and legitimate caution. > Not FUD. Any email admin should take into account that their operating > policies will have a profound effect on what they do and do not know > about their operations. Failing to consider information that might be > hidden by a process/policy is not wise. > > That's not to say that the admin should never choose a solution which > has a higher risk of "invisible consequences" - only that they should be > aware that these consequences exist and that they should weigh those > risks against the operational costs of their systems (and other > factors). > > _M > > > 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/ > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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/
