Re: [RBL] Current status?
- From: billg999@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Gunshannon)
- Date: 4 Sep 2008 17:37:15 GMT
In article <mpcBTO6SIjDl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
koehler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bob Koehler) writes:
In article <gLRvk.272770$TT4.161515@attbi_s22>, "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
If it is not supposed to send e-mail, and it attempts to, don't you
think someone should find out why?
We've had a lot of problems deploying COTS products that send
out notifications via email, from systems that the security folks
think shouldn't be "mail servers".
So "supposed to" is in the eye of the beholder.
Not really. Those particular devices should be sending their email to
the real mailserver which should be the only one communicating with mail
servers in the the outside world. If network/system managers, in particular
ISP's, followed this rule 99% of SPAM cold be dealt with in ver short order.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- From: Bob Koehler
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: Current status?
- From: johnwallace4
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- References:
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- From: John E. Malmberg
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- From: John E. Malmberg
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- From: Bob Koehler
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- Prev by Date: Re: DEFCON 16 and Hacking OpenVMS
- Next by Date: Re: Loose Cannon-dian
- Previous by thread: Re: [RBL] Current status?
- Next by thread: Re: Current status?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|