I don't see any reason why ANY company should have a problem with spam.
At my company, we run our mail through a communigate relay before it gets to our main mail server. The communigate server is set to do several things:
1. Reverse lookup verification
2. Check the Spamhaus RBL
3. Check the SpamCop RBL
4. Check the Open Relay RBL
Also communigate's generic spam filtering is turned on.
Guess what? No more problem with spam. None. Sure, the virus propogated emails get through, but their attachments get deleted because our firewall scans the attachments for virii.
The only thing we have had to do is whitelist a number of domains but any spam solution is going to require tweaking.
BTW, if anybody knows a good, *FREE* Dynamic IP RBL I'd like to hear about it.
I work for a company who has several offices where they can't get VPN over DSL in several of their offices in Virginia, even though they are willing to pay a little extra.
What the companies do is block IP Protocol 50 entirely. I mean, Verizon knows that a business class DSL line can be used for VPN and cost a whole lot less than a T1. So why the heck are they going to allow VPN over business class DSL? They won't.
No one in the industry likes VPN. We had an office in the eastern part of Virginia than we tried to implement DSL VPN. But guess what- the packets got dropped in the middle! Another companies router (through which our info was passing) was dropping IP Prot 50 packets and there wasn't a single thing we could do about it. We are having to buy T1s and install ISDN modems.
All it takes to break VPN is for one company on either end or in the middle to decide they won't allow it. To build your company of VPN is just plain stupid, unless you have a contract with the remote access vendor, your T1 vendor, and any telcos/corps in between that might decide to drop YOUR packets.
Now, concerning residential service allowing business use- I have a question to start out with... why don't the cablecos restrict access to the truly objectionable material on the internet? Stuff we all agree is vile? Censorship issues aside, the point I am trying to make is, restrictions are put in place because they benefit the bottom line. The cablecos aren't asking what's right or wrong, but what is profitable.
What the cablecos have apparently sold is X Mbps down/X Kbps up. If I use all of that all the time, is that abuse? The easy answer is no, because that's what was advertised.
The cablecos answer is yes, you dummy, you know full well we can't handle everybody like that.
The cablecos are saying in essence- you have to respect our profits.
The cablecos are deceitful cheapskates who refuse to do one of the following to make themselves honest:
1. Advertise lower bandwidth rates that the cable user can saturate 24/7 without charges of abuse
2. Invest the capital to expand their network as different groups of users begin to saturate the bandwidth they bought
3. Advertise their access as web/email/file transfer/streaming only and block other ports.
Any of these would likely trim profits in the short term, but--
I don't feel the need to finish that last sentence because all that matters to a public corporation are profits and stock price.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any reason why ANY company should have a problem with spam. At my company, we run our mail through a communigate relay before it gets to our main mail server. The communigate server is set to do several things: 1. Reverse lookup verification 2. Check the Spamhaus RBL 3. Check the SpamCop RBL 4. Check the Open Relay RBL Also communigate's generic spam filtering is turned on. Guess what? No more problem with spam. None. Sure, the virus propogated emails get through, but their attachments get deleted because our firewall scans the attachments for virii. The only thing we have had to do is whitelist a number of domains but any spam solution is going to require tweaking. BTW, if anybody knows a good, *FREE* Dynamic IP RBL I'd like to hear about it.
I work for a company who has several offices where they can't get VPN over DSL in several of their offices in Virginia, even though they are willing to pay a little extra. What the companies do is block IP Protocol 50 entirely. I mean, Verizon knows that a business class DSL line can be used for VPN and cost a whole lot less than a T1. So why the heck are they going to allow VPN over business class DSL? They won't. No one in the industry likes VPN. We had an office in the eastern part of Virginia than we tried to implement DSL VPN. But guess what- the packets got dropped in the middle! Another companies router (through which our info was passing) was dropping IP Prot 50 packets and there wasn't a single thing we could do about it. We are having to buy T1s and install ISDN modems. All it takes to break VPN is for one company on either end or in the middle to decide they won't allow it. To build your company of VPN is just plain stupid, unless you have a contract with the remote access vendor, your T1 vendor, and any telcos/corps in between that might decide to drop YOUR packets. Now, concerning residential service allowing business use- I have a question to start out with... why don't the cablecos restrict access to the truly objectionable material on the internet? Stuff we all agree is vile? Censorship issues aside, the point I am trying to make is, restrictions are put in place because they benefit the bottom line. The cablecos aren't asking what's right or wrong, but what is profitable. What the cablecos have apparently sold is X Mbps down/X Kbps up. If I use all of that all the time, is that abuse? The easy answer is no, because that's what was advertised. The cablecos answer is yes, you dummy, you know full well we can't handle everybody like that. The cablecos are saying in essence- you have to respect our profits. The cablecos are deceitful cheapskates who refuse to do one of the following to make themselves honest: 1. Advertise lower bandwidth rates that the cable user can saturate 24/7 without charges of abuse 2. Invest the capital to expand their network as different groups of users begin to saturate the bandwidth they bought 3. Advertise their access as web/email/file transfer/streaming only and block other ports. Any of these would likely trim profits in the short term, but-- I don't feel the need to finish that last sentence because all that matters to a public corporation are profits and stock price.