Dave Howe wrote:
>
> Crist Clark wrote:
> > Unless your AV software has a clue, like most do, and unzips archives
> > and see what's inside.
> which is ideal for virus scanning, but not for blanket-blocking of email.
> A zipped archive containing an executable cannot (unless something has
> chang
Crist Clark wrote:
> Unless your AV software has a clue, like most do, and unzips archives
> and see what's inside.
which is ideal for virus scanning, but not for blanket-blocking of email.
A zipped archive containing an executable cannot (unless something has
changed that I don't know about) be a
Jack Bates wrote:
>
> Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> > We dont filter by file type.. people do send exe's legitimately!
> >
>
> You can zip the exe, or you can rename the exe, or you can ask not to
> have exe's filtered at all.
>
> Sometimes solutions can be simple.
Unless your AV software has
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Just like what some viruses do you mean?
A zipped virus or a renamed virus to say exd or dat is less likely to
get an infection hold than .pif, .bat, or .exe
-Jack
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> > We dont filter by file type.. people do send exe's legitimately!
> >
>
>
> You can zip the exe, or you can rename the exe, or you can ask not to
> have exe's filtered at all.
Just like what some viruses do you mean?
S
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
We dont filter by file type.. people do send exe's legitimately!
You can zip the exe, or you can rename the exe, or you can ask not to
have exe's filtered at all.
Sometimes solutions can be simple.
-Jack
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> What is the most common method for providing virus protection for your
> hosted email customers? Thank you in advance.
None, we only protect those customers who additionally pay for our antivirus
services.
These services comp
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:49:07 PDT, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> majority. My nanog list mail account got joejobbed by the
> "Netscalibur" user, both as sender and receiver (supposedly from
> Valdis Kletnieks, and somebody at NetSol.) and I've never seen what
> an Outlook mail clie
>
> Perhaps, Outlook is a secure and performant email solution - in, say, 3
> to 4 years from now, but this means a drastic change of course for the
> vendor.
>
In other news microsoft announced that they stopped development on
Outlook Express.
Pete
Warning, this is an off-topic rant about client software and the state of
the world WRT Windows and Linux. There is zero operational content in this
post.
At 06:07 PM 8/20/2003, Lou Katz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:46:48PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
>
> At 02:07 PM 8/20/2003, Karsten W. Rohrb
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:46:48PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
>
> At 02:07 PM 8/20/2003, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote:
>
> >There's quite a lot of usable stuff out there. Many Win32 users have
> >switched to Mozilla which seems to solve 100% of the Outlook-specific
> >attacks which account for... hmmm..
To answer the original question asked...
At 10:50 -0700 8/20/03, Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
What is the most common method for providing virus protection for your
hosted email customers? Thank you in advance.
We use a layered approach, with Postini being the front line ...they
do an *excellen
At 02:07 PM 8/20/2003, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote:
There's quite a lot of usable stuff out there. Many Win32 users have
switched to Mozilla which seems to solve 100% of the Outlook-specific
attacks which account for... hmmm... 100% of the malicious email
messages of the last 6 months.
Unfortunately
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote:
Mutt and similar MUAs are prone to misconfiguration, which makes them
vulnerable to some degree, but this fact alone does not expose enough
surface for implementation of an internet-wide worm attack ;-)
So you are saying that all MUA's are pr
just me([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2003.08.20 14:41:02 +:
> Please don't pretend that your MUA-de-jour is somehow invulnerable by
> design, unless you've audited every line of code yourself.
I don't.
Mutt and similar MUAs are prone to misconfiguration, which makes them
vulnerable to some degree, bu
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote:
just me([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2003.08.20 14:17:17 +:
>
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1997-14.html
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1998-10.html
>
> Wow, the second one even mentions Mutt by name.
The more recent of those two
just me([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2003.08.20 14:17:17 +:
>
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1997-14.html
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1998-10.html
>
> Wow, the second one even mentions Mutt by name.
The more recent of those two advisories is dated August 11, 1998.
What are you trying to
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote:
Some switched to Mac. Many UNIX users are on mutt or similar MUAs which
do not bear the potential for execution of arbitrary code.
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1997-14.html
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1998-10.html
Wow, the second on
Jack Bates([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2003.08.20 15:49:01 +:
>
> That's what the net admin was telling me when I mentioned one of his
> branch bank offices had Sobig-F. Apparently they all run A/V and I think
> he said his mail server does as well. Unfortunately, they still allow
> executables in.
Christopher J. Wolff([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2003.08.20 10:50:55 +:
>
> What is the most common method for providing virus protection for your
> hosted email customers? Thank you in advance.
Making them switch to a software product that does not auto-execute
arbitrary chunks of code that come in
John Palmer wrote:
Hey - they aren't supposed to be using their work e-mail for stuff
other than work - especially in a banking environment.
I would be unhappy if my bank did not exclude executables from
outside e-mail.
That's what the net admin was telling me when I mentioned one of his
branc
uot;Gary E. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jack Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 14:29
Subject: Re: Email virus protection
>
> Yo Jack!
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
>
> > The
Gary E. Miller wrote:
I love guys like you. All my customers once had (still have) admins
that filtered and cleaned their email for them. Also added
firewalls for their protection. Now they are my customers because they
do not want your protections.
I never understood ISPs that can apply a filt
Yo Jack!
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> The best method for protection of your network (by limiting exposure of
> your users to viruses) is to strip executable files. We replace the
> files with a small text file mentioning the filename and a brief
> description of why we stripped it a
Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
Hello,
What is the most common method for providing virus protection for your
hosted email customers? Thank you in advance.
The best method for protection of your network (by limiting exposure of
your users to viruses) is to strip executable files. We replace the
fi
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
| Christopher J. Wolff
| Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:51 PM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Email virus protection
|
|
| Hello,
|
| What is the most common method for providing virus
Hello,
What is the most common method for providing virus protection for your
hosted email customers? Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO
Broadband Laboratories, Inc.
http://www.bblabs.com
27 matches
Mail list logo
