Educause Security Discussion mailing list archives
Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification
From: Dave Koontz <dkoontz () MBC EDU>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:29:16 -0400
IMO this issue seems to be a little broader that than just a simple "List-Serve" issue. Shortly after I responded to an email on this list regarding our various problems with Cisco's Acquitition of Perfigo, I have been swamped with calls from various vendors. Since I did not post my direct phone number in my posting, these calls have all came through our main campus phone line, asking for me. As this is the only forum in which I've mentioned anything about this issue, it's pretty clear where these vendors got my contact information. While I agree that vendor input on issues and questions can be very valuable here, this list should not be used as a sales / marketing "Hit List". Jamie @ CBSI did the correct thing, Identified himself as a Vendor, attempted to answer our questions. It seems that there are many other vendors out there that are using this list soley as a marketing / sales lead tool. -----Original Message----- From: Information Security [mailto:infosecurity () UTPA EDU] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:26 AM To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Parker, Ron wrote:
Before we all bounce down this road about vendors on the list, remember that EDUCAUSE's policies do allow it. I think it can be valuable in many cases.
Seconded. Let's save that argument until the day someone abuses the list. Jamie Stapleton's posts are generally helpful and worth reading, and it's clear from his email address he is a vendor. Not a problem to me. Let's return to the discussion of spam appliances... I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Brightmail yet - that's usually the one I hear when a company is programming-phobic and wants a managed solution. As far as I understand it, their approach is primarily spamtrap-based and they mark only mails that they've seen elsewhere in spamtraps. They have a good reputation but I worry that betting the farm on one technique is a long-term risk, as polymorphic and customised spams become more prevalent. I've already started receiving spams where some of the 'whitening' text was taken from my own web site, in order to get past my Bayesian filters. That's pretty sophisticated, and I have to wonder why the spammers bother, because if someone goes to the effort of installing a spam filter you might imagine that they'd never respond to spam even if it did slip through. Graham
Current thread:
- Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Parker, Ron (Jul 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Information Security (Jul 28)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Dave Koontz (Jul 28)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Sarah Stevens (Jul 28)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Tom Bossie (Jul 29)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Dennis Meharchand, CEO Valt.x (Jul 29)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Theresa M Rowe (Jul 29)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Jimmy L. Fikes (Jul 29)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification John Nunnally (Jul 29)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Jason Richardson (Jul 29)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Harry A'Hole (Jul 29)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Jason Richardson (Jul 29)
- Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification Parker, Ron (Aug 02)