I would say that there are more people NOT in the CA camp then those that
are in the CA camp.  So, what you are reading here is a rare case.

It may be that CA is working fine for some...I personally have not been very
happy with CA's products - Antivirus and Backup softwares.

For those that can make it work....great job.  I am glad someone is still
supporting them...must have some people helping them pay the bills...just
not me or my customers.

Regards,
Leonard Lee



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Wes Owen
> Sent: April 2, 2002 9:18 AM
> To: NT 2000 Discussions
> Subject: RE: Antivirus Strategy
>
>
> Because it is CA.  Seems like we have a some on here that
> love them, but
> there are a lot not of that camp.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 7:25 AM
> To: NT 2000 Discussions
> Subject: RE: Antivirus Strategy
>
>
>
> whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy shudder lol?
>
>
>
>
>                     James Winzenz
>
>                     <James.Winzenz@peregrin       To:     "NT 2000
> Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>                     e.com>                        cc:
>
>                     Sent by:                      Subject:
>  RE: Antivirus
> Strategy
>                     bounce-nt2000-203418@ls
>
>                     .swynk.com
>
>
>
>
>
>                     04/02/02 03:20 PM
>
>                     Please respond to "NT
>
>                     2000 Discussions"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <shudder>
> Computer Associates
> <shudder>
>
> There, I said it . . .
>
> James Winzenz, MCSE, A+
> Associate Systems Administrator
> Peregrine Systems, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:02 AM
> To: NT 2000 Discussions
> Subject: RE: Antivirus Strategy
>
>
>
> CA being the Acronym for ?
>
>
>
>
>                     "Alexander Kha Do"
>
>                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                  To:     "NT 2000
> Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>                     Sent by:                      cc:
>
>                     bounce-nt2000-203418@ls       Subject:     RE:
> Antivirus
> Strategy
>                     .swynk.com
>
>
>
>
>
>                     03/30/02 01:25 AM
>
>                     Please respond to "NT
>
>                     2000 Discussions"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John, I must agree with you there.
>
> CA software installs perfectly every time, and ARCServe is so
> stable, it's
> almost transparent on our servers =) It's NEVER taken down
> our exchange
> server =).
>
> Wes, so you use a good product like MIMESweeper at the
> Gateway level and a
> crappy product like InnocuLAN at the client level??  Hmmm I
> guess if you
> have a real acceptable use policy you can get away with that.
>  We can't
> really tell students and professors what they are and aren't
> allowed to do.
>
> -alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: King, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 1:00 PM
> To: NT 2000 Discussions
> Subject: RE: Antivirus Strategy
>
>
> I love CA's ARCserve...  It has never caused any problems.  I
> have always
> gotten reliable backups with it.  I have never had to work
> nights/weekend
> because the software sucks.    I never have trouble with CA phone
> support.
> The CA website is so helpful too.  Oh, the CA licensing stuff
> has never
> cause any problem either. I just can never say how much I love CA
> products....
>
> ~John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 3:53 PM
> To: NT 2000 Discussions
> Subject: RE: Antivirus Strategy
>
>
> You may want to take a look at the eSafe discussion from yesterday.
>
> We use CA InocuLAN and have been very happy with the product.
> Distribution
> works well and we have had no client related issues in the last year.
>
> Hate CA.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Kha Do [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:35 PM
> To: NT 2000 Discussions
> Subject: Antivirus Strategy
>
>
> I know I'm about to start a huge fire here -
>
> It is pretty much in agreeance that for comprehensive
> antivirus protection,
> you need scanning at the gateway, smtp, group mail and client
> levels. I'd
> like to focus more on the clients here in this discussion,
> but where other
> protection with suites ties in would be appropriate as well.
>
> How do some of you enjoy / dislike the enterprise-management
> features of
> your protection - mainly in relation to NAV Corporate, or
> McAfee VirusScan /
> Netshield in conjunction with the ePolicy Orchestrator?
>
> Right now some issues I have are that Symantec seems to
> consistently be
> slower at releasing definitions than McAfee, but I have heard
> better things
> about the Norton mangement console than about ePolicy Orchestrator.
>
> We have a very hodge-podge defense right now - no gateway or
> SMTP defense,
> Norton on Exchange (we also have a UNIX POP server that we
> are migrating
> away from with no protection other than .procmailrc files),
> and McAfee on
> the desktops and servers with no ePolicy management - and are
> in the process
> of re-evaluating our entire overall strategy.  Our users are
> 700 regular
> employees, faculty, and public lab workstations, and 1200
> students in dorms
> that we cannot install software for.  We're also considering
> eSafe Gateway,
> because it is so comprehensive and is cheaper than other
> gateway solutions.
> Do some of you relax your client protection if you invest in fully
> comprehensive gateway protection??
>
> Thanks in advance.
> -Alex
>
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
> whom they are
> addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the
> person responsible
> for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be
> advised that you
> have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination,
> forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
> prohibited.
>
>
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
>
>
>
>
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
>
>
>
>
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>


------
You are subscribed as [email protected]
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to