nanog mailing list archives
Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:19:52 -0400
On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:56:30 EDT, "Christopher X. Candreva" <chris () westnet com> said:
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.
Right. Mirapoints are that way too (at least in our configuration). And yes, we'll probably have to buy a 5th Mirapoint and/or upgrade our current 4 sooner because of it - but the incremental cost for that is *still* lower than the cost of replacing them with another vendor's gear.... Now how do you explain to the CFO that in order to get around a $50K upgrade to the current gear, you want to spend $200K to bring in another vendor? :)
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall, (continued)
- 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)