Kids bypassing firewall via web proxy sites

LOL? With such a computing power you cannot even partitially implement the functions stated above in any serious manner.

Send a file with .jpeg as Content-Type: text/plain with the actual content being a .doc file, IE will notice that it's the latter. This is called MIME sniffing and, according to Microsoft, is supposed to a feature rather than a security problem.

So whatever you filter, IE doesn't care for it.

src="

Can you tell me whether the one above is just advertisement or proxying? (hint: it's both)

Depending on how deep your analysis is, you can choose between missing the most relevant data and few false positives.

Except that it doesn't work as supposed.

I know this exactly from extensive experience of trying.

LOL, yep, I got much the same from them at the end of the year - they wanted to know WHO fixed the computers and why they were permitted to touch the computers when repair of the computers is a Union job... They wanted to know how to make a image that could be restored :) The bad part of it, since I pay taxes and my kids don't go to that school, is that I had to buy licenses for Ghost for those machines, but it was worth it to make her job easier.

Not here - if a kid is expelled the parents are still responsible for the next months payment... If the kid is kicked out for the year they still have to pay.

WARNING, WARNING - ignore anything charles states, he's not been right about anything he's posted this year or last year that I know of.

Actually, a fake email address, one that is not pointing at a valid domain, doesn't "double" spam, or send it to other people. Using a fake email address that points to a real domain is always bad and does increase spam.

I use to use snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.org, then nowhere.org was bought, so now I use snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.lan since .lan isn't valid.

Charles, you are seriously lacking in skills. SP2 is not the issue, it's how you have the SP2 included firewall setup, or in your case, how you missed setting it up properly.

I hope you were being sarcastic, as Charles is wrong.

Yep did content filtering didn't he. Man that must be driving you nuts. :)

Only the things stated above, but not the content filtering is the reason for his success.

Except that he said he implemented filtering, and then was able to see kids "ATTEMPT" to use the sites, and then called them to task for "Trying" to access those sites.

This means, in case you missed it, while the scope of the filtering was limited, it worked for his case, and blocked kids from accessing the sites while other means failed.

no...

if you have time to do that sort of thing on your network, your company is way over staffed.

Im lucky if I have time to monitor my firewall logs (like I had to do yesterday, headmasters request)

Your solution may be the best solution on paper, but given my time retraints, what I have is working fine.

thanks

uhhh... diable windows firewall then....

What is strange about some people on this group (And forgive me, I am new, but I have a fresh perspective) is that alot of you guys LOVE to say how others are wrong and hate to be told you are wrong...

To me, I learned the most by being told better ways to do something, and it wasnt by people who gained glory by telling someone how dumb they are...

Strange what a paper certification will do to some peoples ego :)

You seem to be confused in email basics too, why I am not surprised? Let's see, so far you showed that you don't understand usenet, and when schooled about it, you tried turning it into an irrelevant discussion, and you are now about to be educated in that one too.

Using an address like snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nospam, does stop spam from getting to me email box and to my domain.

Using an email like snipped-for-privacy@dingens.org, does not stop spam, whether that address is real or not is not even a factor, since dingens.org is a valid domain, and you could be flooded with email, dictionary spam attacks, even if "bumens" is not a valid email box/alias on that domain.

Get it now?

Now I suggest that you do your homework next time, before you post something as stupid as this, or be kind enough to explain to the interested readers, how exactly an invalid address like snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nospam is getting spam.

I'll save you further embarrassment making a fool out of yourself in public like this, you can't so save your inane rants to someone who might consider you worthy of further responses.

What you call entertainment, is called you being humiliated on planet Earth, by any sane person, which you seem not to fit in that description.

You've been schooled now, and education, and I am certain that you won't be able to get over it, but C'est la vie, as they say.

You seem to be new to usenet and the Internet in general, and your trolling is not even funny.

Time for you to grow up.

So far I have yet to see a single post from you that had something worth the waste of bandwidth and time in it.

Go play in the traffic, junior.

He does not seem to understand many things, that one was hilarious, claiming that an address like snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nospam would receive spam.

The guy(?) is a loony.

You both don't understand.

The problem is with Spam, where (as usual) the sender's address is faked to a valid, existing mail address of a victim. Then because of your fake address this victim gets all bounces of the Spam sent to your fake address.

Because of this, the amount of Spam sent to your address is doubled and the victim whose mail address is abused as faked sender's address gets all the bounces, she/he usually is bombarded with bounces.

And this is _your_ fault.

Think about it, VB.

I just explained it in the posting before. Let's see, if you will manage to understand.

Yes. And it does cause bounces (and usually thousands of bounces) to the victim's address, whose mail address is abused as faked sender adress in the Spam.

Yes, of course. I will not cause such bounces to Spam victims.

I prefered the latter. Let's see if you will manage to understand.

You're wrong with this assumption.

Yours, VB.

BTW: you could read RFC 2606 and try to understand, which domain names for your fake address would be a better idea, if you insist to have a fake address at all.

And: if you don't understand, how Internet mail works, how DNS works and what problems Spamming causes exactly, then first try to read the corresponding RFCs and perhaps a good book about the topic before you're arguing here.

Yours, VB.

using an invalid name does not increase spam to the domain that you use

-if you use a valid domain it does.

if the user picks snipped-for-privacy@spam.spam, no spam will go to that address since .spam is invalid and won't even make it out of the senders server.