RE: [Declude.JunkMail] IMail's Relay for Addresses

2005-02-16 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
For your configuration, you've got it exactly, Matt. Allow me to explain it a different way: The Relay for Addresses is to allow specific hosts to send mail to your IMail server and have that IMail server deliver the message to the Internet (i.e. addresses that are not on your IMail server).

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Internet Usage - Monitoring and Filtering Apps

2005-02-16 Thread smb
Marc, I would be interested in these keys for some of the workstaions here if you do not mind sharing them. Thanks Stu At 05:46 PM 2/15/2005 -0500, you wrote: If these are machines that the company owns and you can install them... I have some Reg Keys that a guy who works under me wrote for

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Internet Usage - Monitoring and Filtering Apps

2005-02-16 Thread Darin Cox
Have you thought about using Group Policies to lock down the workstations? Darin. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8:06 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Internet Usage - Monitoring and Filtering Apps

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Internet Usage - Monitoring and Filtering Apps

2005-02-16 Thread Marc Catuogno
Here is the site where we purchased some blocks (free for individual users) http://www.spywareguide.com/blockfile.php This was the file that my guy put together - just copy it into a text file and save as .reg, double click and integrate. I have tested it on XP ONLY. This file works to help me

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Internet Usage - Monitoring and Filtering Apps

2005-02-16 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
That is an interesting site; for hardening up a specific user's IE on a specific machine, I like: SpywareBlaster from http://www.javacoolsoftware.com It won't stop the user from going to a bad website, but will help that IE from getting infected with junk. I believe SpywareBlaster is free for

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Internet Usage - Monitoring and Filtering Apps

2005-02-16 Thread Scott Fosseen
I have evaluated a Fortigate 60 unit in a few locations. I think List price is about $700, Support is $250/year and Content Filter is $250/year. The sales person told me they recommended that unit for up to 25 workstations, but the specs say up to 7 Mbps throughput and 50,000 concurrent

[Declude.JunkMail] Phishing

2005-02-16 Thread David Sullivan
We're running JM+Sniffer and still having some problems with phishes. Here's the headers of a message that passed through and didn't trip a single test. Our user got 140 of these in a period of a few hours. He always seems to be on the front end of these things. I'm running spf so it didn't fail

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Phishing

2005-02-16 Thread Scott Fisher
I use two things to 2 things use to combat phish. 1. Prescan off in Declude Virus and use clamav as a scanner. This caught 656 in January. It's a beast on your CPU utilization as almost every mail will need to be virus scanned. 2. A MINWEIGHTTOFAIL filter that means the filter must match 4 or

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Phishing

2005-02-16 Thread David Sullivan
Hello Scott, Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 2:52:43 PM, you wrote: SF 1. Prescan off in Declude Virus and use clamav as a scanner. This caught 656 SF in January. It's a beast on your CPU utilization as almost every mail will SF need to be virus scanned. I already run PRESCAN OFF but I'm only

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Switch to control bandwidth

2005-02-16 Thread Matt
I just wanted to follow up on this thread. First, thanks for all of the suggestions. Here's a summary of what caught my eye. 1) There are some decent choices out there, and seemingly a 3COM SuperStack 3 3226 comes at a nice price point (around $500) and allows limiting per port at 1 Mbps

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Switch to control bandwidth

2005-02-16 Thread Darin Cox
Best solution is monitoring. Without creating a system of dedicated circuits to each customer you can't guarantee one customer will not adversely affect another. Rate-limiting at the switch (or software "switch") will help, but still means a smaller pipe for everyone else...and doesn't help

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Switch to control bandwidth

2005-02-16 Thread sbsi lists
Hi Matt, you might look at http://www.etinc.com/index.php?cPath=25 more $$s than your budget UNLESS you go with their software and you handle the OS/Hardware. I don't have experience with this -- yet... but thinking of using one of their appliances or get the software and trying it. --

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Switch to control bandwidth

2005-02-16 Thread Matt
I've got a nice solution for this called IPcheck Server Monitor from Paessler (http://www.paessler.com/products/ipcheck/?link=menu). It is buggy however from the standpoint of the interface, though they have been continually improving and fixing it. It has nice notification features such as

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Switch to control bandwidth

2005-02-16 Thread Darrell \([EMAIL PROTECTED])
The only other thing that I could possibly think of is a lot of what you are talking about could be QoS'ed. Unfortunatly, this would be on a service level requirement. For exmaple not letting SMTP exceed a certain bandwidth when web is at a certain level, but allowing SMTP to burst when web

[Declude.JunkMail] Massive DJM Logs and DLAnalyzer

2005-02-16 Thread Dan Geiser
Hello, All, I've noticed that my DJM logs have been growing progressively bigger until yesterday I had one top out at over 380+ MB. I think these might be effecting the performance of Declude but I don't have any proof. As these logs grow bigger is there any correlation between log size and

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Switch to control bandwidth

2005-02-16 Thread Darin Cox
I hear ya... hate to be in reactive mode as well. When sharing pipes you only have two choices, clamp bandwidth down for any single customer to the point that one or more customers' abuse won't impact others, or react via monitoring. For the specific cases you outlined, it sounds like

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Massive DJM Logs and DLAnalyzer

2005-02-16 Thread Darrell \([EMAIL PROTECTED])
I'm currently running with LOG LEVEL set to HIGH so I can get the most out of Invariant Systems DLAnalyzer. So this 2nd question might be better directed towards them. Really the only report I generate every month is a Test Summary Report so I can see the effectiveness of tests and a Domain

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Switch to control bandwidth

2005-02-16 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
Title: Message I can add a few bits. Packeteer.com and Net-Reality.com both have swissarmy-like products that will fit the bill, but they don't come at a pricepoint that fits your budget. If their licencing scheme fits, and you can get a bargain on eBay, I'd recommend them. And they do

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Switch to control bandwidth

2005-02-16 Thread Matt
Darin Cox wrote: For the specific cases you outlined, it sounds like IMGate might help.We don't use it, but from what I've read on the lists, it sounds like it could be configured to protect against these scenarios. We use a single box solution integrating VamSoft's ORF with MS

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Switch to control bandwidth

2005-02-16 Thread Matt
Thanks, this looks like another good candidate. The software license of $795 isn't that bad, and you don't need anything special to run it to capacity on my network. I would like to see it in action however, and figure out if it was easy to use (worth money to me), and also as stable as

[Declude.JunkMail] RFCSPACE Explanation?

2005-02-16 Thread Adam Hobach
Hello, I have been looking for an explanation of the RFCSPACE test but I cannot find one Anybody have a detailed explanation with references? Thanks, Adam --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Switch to control bandwidth

2005-02-16 Thread sbsi lists
Hi Matt, Read thru their web site - it's not open source and he will tell you that. Best thing is to open up a SALES TICKET and ask your questions - he's pretty fast on getting back to you. Also, you can download beta/demo software to try out -- so, you might give that a try. And, he sells

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RFCSPACE Explanation?

2005-02-16 Thread R. Scott Perry
I have been looking for an explanation of the RFCSPACE test but I cannot find one Anybody have a detailed explanation with references? Do you mean CMDSPACE? That one looks for a space in the SMTP commands, such as RCPT TO:, that really shouldn't be there (although some people may try to