But, but, but... Auditors LIKE policies. They make them happy!
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Brian Desmond <[email protected]>wrote: > *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]* > > * * > > *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] > To: [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]***** > > * ***** > > *w – 312.625.1438 | c – 312.731.3132***** > > * ***** > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Tanya Pinetti > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2013 11:08 AM > *To:* [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.**** >
