Evgeny Stambulchik wrote:
Of course, it would be possible (albeit far from optimal, IMHO).
Moreover, this was indeed the solution WICC suggested to me quite a
while ago, and I accepted it (although, again, I believe that such a
complication was completely unnecessary). However, on Thursday, I was
told that the new decision is to block the SMTP traffic to plasma-gate
completely.
I was told that nobody wants to shut down anything. I will check this.
So there is a striking difference between what I was told and your
information. Did you get it after the last Thursday or before?
got the mail on Sunday 5.10.2003.
Well, that's pretty strange. Unfortunately, I have no formal proof of what I was told since this decision (as well as all others, related to plasma-gate) was conducted to me by a phone call. Of course, Hebrew isn't my native language, but... BTW, when I say "all others" I mean those which were delivered to me at all. In several cases, I found out about new security policies only when something stopped working.
While we're at that, I'd like to ask you about one favor. Apparently, you managed to establish a _technical_ contact with the Information Security people - something which I've miserably failed for a very long time. So can you please ask them what was the reason to ban [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses in the first place?
I will try to find out but as i understand it, the descision to convert all mail addresses to @wezman.ac.il was
taken close to 3 years a go and @plasma-gate was given an exception back then with a notice to migrate.
I don't know when the decision was taken. But the relevant phone call certainly wasn't earlier than a year ago. Again, I can rely only upon my memory, since the issue clearly wasn't worth a sheet of paper.
Your calculations are correct but lack the "Angry Customer Call" (ACC) value.
ACC enters the equasion in case of "abnormal incoming mail activity" which is very common in the last year.
So three years ago they foresaw the current flood of email-related Windows viruses? How provisionally smart... Bur apparently, three years weren't enough to install a simple filter (discarding executable types in the attachments) at the official WIS mail gateway. So when the viruses came, a lot of WIS PCs running Windows were affected.
Yet, I don't understand why the ACC issue has anything to do with a real server. I believe I don't have to waste everybody's time to explain that the "From:" header in spam and/or worm-generated messages has nothing to do with its real owner.
I can only guess that someone said "We paid lots of money for someone to write this security policy 3 years a go!
We should implement it to the letter!"
Well, this is my opinion, too. I'm glad you got it independently.
IMHO to keep linux-il archive running the address should be changed to @weizmann.ac.il according to the new
security policy.
I see no technical point in treating the robot's address differently from the rest.
Regarding other addresses @plasma-gate : the "addresses on published papers" is a great argument and might help
you to regain control over your incoming mail - "This security policy interferes with scientific work!" (this is a good one)
or maybe "Because of the new security policy we'll never finish this warp-drive engine on time!" :-)
If you would migrate all addresses to @weizmann and then start bugging the IT people with every new alias, how
long do you think will take before they will give you @plasma-gate back?
Well, if no logical proof is able to alter the policy, that will happen, of course. However, neither myself, nor other members of our group enjoy sado-masochistic exercises, so a less painful resolution would be preferable.
BTW, does it trouble only myself, that for the whole week since the issue was publically raised, NOBODY from WICC joined the discussion on either side? Especially given that I know for sure that a few WICC employees are subscribed and/or browse the list periodically, since (I'm risking to reveal a huge secret), there are at least a couple of Linux servers in WICC plus countless workstations spread around the campus. Or are public discussions/sharings of views are discouraged to _that_ degree??
Regards,
Evgeny
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
