If the requirement is simply an arbitrary policy, perhaps now is a good time to revisit that policy? It seems like this is adding no value other than checking a box.
Thanks, Brian Desmond [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> w - 312.625.1438 | c - 312.731.3132 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tanya Pinetti Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 2:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] TMG Proxy Replacement Brian, That's pretty much it - just a forward proxy for servers in our data center per our IT policy. Do you have any suggestions? ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] TMG Proxy Replacement Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:50:50 +0000 So what functional purpose(s) does this proxy serve other than to meet an arbitrary policy? Thanks, Brian Desmond [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> w - 312.625.1438 | c - 312.731.3132 From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tanya Pinetti Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 11:08 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [NTSysADM] TMG Proxy Replacement We brought up a new data center and need to configure a local proxy server so servers can access the internet. We do not allow servers to have direct access to the internet. Our other data center has TMG, but we don't have enough licenses and would like to explore a replacement for TMG. I only need it for proxy purposes so something simply would be ideal. Any suggestions? I'm looking at UAG, but maybe there's something better our simpler out there. Thanks.
