nanog mailing list archives
Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall
From: "Christopher X. Candreva" <chris () westnet com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:56:30 -0400 (EDT)
You're missing the main point - that sometimes things are done in ways that are sub-optimal or even pessimal from the technical standpoint, because some other consideration interferes. Yes, it *would* be nice if everybody in the world
But if you really need a reason to convince someone who won't get their head out of their . . . the sand -- You can probably cut in half the number of viruses you have to scan if you reject invalid addresses up front, meaning you can buy a smaller/ fewer virus scanner(s).
Which means the companies making them have absolutely no incentive to add this feature.
========================================================== Chris Candreva -- chris () westnet com -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/
Current thread:
- Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall, (continued)
- Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall Per Gregers Bilse (May 18)
- Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall Eric A. Hall (May 18)
- Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall Per Gregers Bilse (May 18)
- Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall Todd Vierling (May 18)
- backscatter hosts Chris Edwards (May 18)
- Re: backscatter hosts Steven Champeon (May 18)
- Re: backscatter hosts Christopher X. Candreva (May 18)
- Re: backscatter hosts Steven Champeon (May 18)
- Re: backscatter hosts John Capo (May 19)
- Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall Christopher X. Candreva (May 18)
- Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall Christopher X. Candreva (May 18)
- Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall Valdis . Kletnieks (May 18)