On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:56:30 EDT, "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> But if you really need a reason to convince someone who won't get their head > out of their . . . the sand -- You can probably cut in half the number of > viruses you have to scan if you reject invalid addresses up front, meaning > you can buy a smaller/ fewer virus scanner(s). > > Which means the companies making them have absolutely no incentive to add > this feature. Right. Mirapoints are that way too (at least in our configuration). And yes, we'll probably have to buy a 5th Mirapoint and/or upgrade our current 4 sooner because of it - but the incremental cost for that is *still* lower than the cost of replacing them with another vendor's gear.... Now how do you explain to the CFO that in order to get around a $50K upgrade to the current gear, you want to spend $200K to bring in another vendor? :)
pgpszl7fhhuy6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
