Dennis Peterson wrote:
My webmail is configured to use our standard smtp servers for all
inbound/outbound mail. It really isn't all that difficult.
I think they mean webmail systems that are not on your network and that
you don't manage. i.e. Hotmail.
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:24 +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
I have no control over this warning.
Yes you do. Use a hotmail/yahoo/gmail account.
At our company, all webmail is blocked and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:24 +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
I have no control over this warning.
Yes you do. Use a hotmail/yahoo/gmail account.
At our company,
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of (creation|submission)
method.
Matt
___
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
At our company, all webmail is blocked and policy forbids it's use, as
it is harder to scan those messages for viruses (and the last time we
got hit by a mass-mailing worm - Melisa - was due to a person using
web-mail.)
We still sell Unix shell
Slightly off topic, but has anyone noticed some numpty, (mentioning no
names), replying to their posts with a test message?
Matt
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
thus Daniel J McDonald spake:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:24 +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
I have no control over this warning.
Yes you do. Use a hotmail/yahoo/gmail account.
At our
thus Randal, Phil spake:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:24 +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
I have no control over this warning.
Yes you do. Use a hotmail/yahoo/gmail
thus Matt Fretwell spake:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of (creation|submission)
method.
partly agreed. if they want to
On May 5, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
(creation|submission)
method.
But...if they're
thus Daniel J McDonald spake:
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 14:12 +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
thus Daniel J McDonald spake:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:24 +0100, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
I have no
Bart Silverstrim said:
On May 5, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
thus Dennis Peterson spake:
Bart Silverstrim said:
On May 5, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail,
Dennis Peterson wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should
be able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
(creation|submission)
method.
But...if they're using webmail, it bypasses your mail
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 14:51 +0100, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should
be able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
(creation|submission)
Matt Fretwell said:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should
be able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
(creation|submission)
method.
But...if they're using webmail, it
Exactly. Whatever numpty would have a web based application sending mail
directly, bypassing your smtp,
Yahoo, gmail, etc
(No, their web mail applications work as they're supposed to, sending mail to
their pool of MTA's.)
--
John Madden
UNIX Systems Engineer
Ivy Tech State College
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
Right, so they should be blocked.
The likes of those webmail systems are no worse that admins who do not
configure their outgoing smtp to scan for virii. An outbreak can originate
from any poorly configured mail system, regardless of type.
Did you read the original
John Madden said:
Exactly. Whatever numpty would have a web based application sending
mail
directly, bypassing your smtp,
Yahoo, gmail, etc
(No, their web mail applications work as they're supposed to, sending mail
to
their pool of MTA's.)
If they were running their systems
Dennis Peterson wrote:
If they were running their systems properly we wouldn't be having this
conversation. The clients of those systems are able to retrieve mail and
attachments straight to local storage while by-passing local filters
(and policy). Not very different from browsing ftp sites
On May 5, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Bart Silverstrim said:
On May 5, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should
be
able to cope with all types
thus Matt Fretwell spake:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
If they were running their systems properly we wouldn't be having this
conversation. The clients of those systems are able to retrieve mail and
attachments straight to local storage while by-passing local filters
(and policy). Not very
If they were running their systems properly we wouldn't be having this
conversation. The clients of those systems are able to retrieve mail and
attachments straight to local storage while by-passing local filters (and
policy). Not very different from browsing ftp sites in that regard, and
Matt Fretwell said:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
If they were running their systems properly we wouldn't be having this
conversation. The clients of those systems are able to retrieve mail and
attachments straight to local storage while by-passing local filters
(and policy). Not very different
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
My webmail is configured to use our standard smtp servers for all
inbound/outbound mail. It really isn't all that difficult.
My understanding was that we were talking about people accessing Yahoo
or Hotmail from work, not your own internal mail servers with a
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 09:32 -0500, John Madden wrote:
If they were running their systems properly we wouldn't be having this
conversation. The clients of those systems are able to retrieve mail and
attachments straight to local storage while by-passing local filters (and
policy). Not very
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Very true - but policy is far less expensive than new hardware, and
there are no licensing fees. I'd have to see the business reason to go
there.
The one business reason I can think of offhand, which is irrespective of
any other consideration, is stupidity. People
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
Maybe, but we have blocked
web-based-outside-e-mail-such-as-yahoo-or-msn-or-gmail-that-doesn't-use
-our-MTA (Hopefully that is explicit enough for the nit-pickers who
can't read context)
Explicit, but terrible punctuation :)
Matt
thus Daniel J McDonald spake:
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 09:32 -0500, John Madden wrote:
If they were running their systems properly we wouldn't be having this
conversation. The clients of those systems are able to retrieve mail and
attachments straight to local storage while by-passing local
Matt Fretwell wanted us to know:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of (creation|submission)
method.
Nonsense. A user clicks on a webmail message, opens the
Todd Lyons said:
Matt Fretwell wanted us to know:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of (creation|submission)
method.
Nonsense. A user clicks on a webmail
this Dennis Peterson spake:
Todd Lyons said:
Matt Fretwell wanted us to know:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of (creation|submission)
method.
Nonsense.
On May 5, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
My webmail is configured to use our standard smtp servers for all
inbound/outbound mail. It really isn't all that difficult.
My understanding was that we were talking about people accessing Yahoo
or Hotmail from work, not
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
This is actually two separate scenarios.
That was Daniel's fault instigated by his being vague :)
To which someone replied that in a *PROPER* network that is *well
managed* this isn't a worry because we block all external mail hosts
and use a proxy for web
On May 5, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
This is actually two separate scenarios.
That was Daniel's fault instigated by his being vague :)
Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he
would know that only a great fool would reach for what
Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he
would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I
am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of
you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have
counted
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On May 5, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
This is actually two separate scenarios.
That was Daniel's fault instigated by his being vague :)
Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he
would know that only a great
I am still not catching this one on two of my four servers. Any
pointers to troubleshooting will be immediately pursued.
Data from one that doesn't work:
Definitions are current:
mail joe $ freshclam
ClamAV update process started at Wed May 4 08:27:53 2005
main.cvd is up to date (version: 31,
On Wed, 4 May 2005 09:00:41 -0500
Joe Kletch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet clamscan does not:
mail joe $ clamscan account_info-text.zip
account_info-text.zip: OK
Nor does clamdscan:
mail joe $ clamdscan account_info-text.zip
/usr/home/joe/account_info-text.zip: OK
--- SCAN
* Joe Kletch [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-04 16:07]:
I am still not catching this one on two of my four servers. Any
pointers to troubleshooting will be immediately pursued.
Some look like W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (by McAfee):
http://vil.mcafeesecurity.com/vil/content/v_132158.htm
~/virus
On May 4, 2005, at 9:09 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
From: Joe Kletch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am still not catching this one on two of my four servers. Any
pointers to troubleshooting will be immediately pursued.
Data from one that doesn't work:
Definitions are current:
mail joe $ freshclam
ClamAV
Subject
05/04/2005 08:18 Re: [Clamav-users] Maybe a virus
AMSober.P
thus Nigel Horne spake:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or fax
But you haven't given your telephone and fax number, so how can you expect
anyone to do that?
sometimes i
Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
I have no control over this warning.
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: The information in the e:mail is confidential and
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity it
is addressed to. If the reader of this message is not the
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man that never gets old. hahahaha not funny.
I have no control over this warning.
Yes you do. Use a hotmail/yahoo/gmail account.
--
Nigel Horne. Arranger, Composer, Typesetter.
NJH Music, Barnsley, UK. ICQ#20252325
[EMAIL
Nigel,
Unfortunately, we have web surfing policies that watch total usage. Though
it is valid, it is not worth mentioning. With the mailing list being so
active I could miss out on alot of threads and great information..
Gord
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: The information in the e:mail is
On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:15:40 +0200 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Timo Schoeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you haven't given your telephone and fax number, so how can you
expect anyone to do that?
sometimes i think lawyers must be screaming of pain (caused by their
stupidity/silliness)... :D
On May 4, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or
fax
But you haven't given your telephone and fax number, so how can you
expect
anyone to do
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On May 4, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or fax
But you haven't given your telephone and fax number, so how can
Bart Silverstrim said:
I've always wondered...why do people put confidentiality notices saying
if this is not meant for you, erase it, yadda yadda... at the END of
the message, so you already know what you're not supposed to know?
I mean, they do know that these disclaimers haven't been
50 matches
Mail list logo
