That's good. Many schools in this area DON'T have that policy in place. Of course, they don't have a policy in place that leads to college-ready graduates wither. ;)
Sorry, my comment was in reply to the statement that content filtering and whit lists were unreasonably harsh measures to take, and the mindset that if people violate your trust on the open 'net, they should be punished.
I know and agree with what you're saying.
If they had the money, I'm sure they'd love to pay more people in the school system. Unfortunately, that would mean hiking up our property taxes. In my state, there is considerable anger over the level of taxation that the school boards impose on residents as it is.
There's no reason why you can't have a combination supervision AND automated blocking.
Goes back to my above comment. A combination of education and prevention.
Sounds like Jazz has done fairly well with his solution. As long as he keeps checking logs once in a while and updating the filter list as required and calling students to task, it is very effective.
lol
So are you suggesting that we should use valid email addresses and endure the spam and the abuse just because someone else is too stupid to setup filtering for his guess-able and forgeable email address?
You have to be kidding.
I have seen lots of lame arguments before, but this one takes the prize.
He seems to be confused about everything, I read few messages from him and he went directly to the kill file.
I can understand someone being confused but being an arrogant and stupid at the same time is just asking to be kill filed and ignored.
If you configured your server to rely on the From: and not From_ or at least the Reply_To: headers, then you deserve what you get.
ROFL.
And you had to nym shift and use sock puppets, Volker? Shame on you, you are really a kook.
Plonk this, retard.
Out of i
Out of idle curiosity, is the e-mail you post with your real e-mail account? If it is, what do YOU do with the spam you get every day as a direct result of posting with your real e-mail?
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:38:51 +0100, Sebastian Gottschalk put finger to keyboard and composed:
You miss the point, which is that a firewall *will* protect you in
*some*, if not *many* cases. No countermeasure is foolproof, nor is any user.So, do you lock up your house and your car? If so, why?
- Franc Zabkar
My ego was deflated in the process of earning certification.
I realised I cannot do my job effectively using logical controls alone - despite my preference for spending my time selecting and implementing technology, and my tendency to avoid using social approaches to security issues.
In other words, I learned that security is hard because it requires a broader skillset than most occupations.
I sincerely congratulate you on your approach to the problem at hand - you significantly mitigated the issue in half a day, using an effective combination of logical and administrative controls appropriate to the environment.
Triffid
Why are you refusing to discuss secure solutions, and are insisting on unsecure twaddle?
It is a matter of fact, that it is possible to keep malware from running on your PC.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to discuss how to learn to walk instead of how to use crutches?
Yours, VB.
Good for you. Now please submit an RFC so we can all benefit from your insight.
Triffid
Ryan P. wrote: [ZA]
Yes. It's just not better than best practice or just using the Windows- Firewall.
That's all what I'm saying.
Yours, VB.
This is wrong. Not to offer services stops abuse of services foolproof. Even the Windows-Firewall stops abusing services foolproof. Onle the "Personal Firewalls" are showing ridiculous popups and are asking the user what to do. Because he may decide wrong then, this is not follproof.
Yours, VB.
It is.
The address is used in usenet and other public discussions only. I have a very strict Spam filter on it.
There are other ways to get rid of Spam than sending it to other people. This is one of them.
Yours, VB.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to read RFC 2821. You seem not to understand SMTP.
Yours, VB.
That's enough. I don't need to read this.
*PLONK*VB.
This is something I'd be interested to hear about. Please continue... E.
you can install NetDog on your computer to block p*rn. its homepage:
Depends... far too many people seem to think that merely installing a desktop firewall will magically protect them from all evil. Obviously (and I think you'll agree) this is not the case.
All in all, it's much safer to configure and run your machine in a way that is safe even if no additional firewall is in place - no unnecessary services, no "I'll just click on that file, if it's dangerous my virus scanner would have caught it". You can install a desktop firewall on top of that - but you should act as if it's not there, and you should always remember that every software has bugs that can be exploited, therefore by adding software you add to the number of possible exploitable holes in your machine.
Juergen Nieveler
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required