We don't police any user. Our business doesn't require us to do it nor we have had any issues that forced us to do it. Everybody has a disk quota and rarely they go over the limit.
What we do in terms of controlling traffic is we don't allow messages bigger than 18000kb incoming at the firewall level- we know this is much bigger than what it's suggested for smtp traffic. We only allow smtp traffic to and from our internal smtp server and MessageLabs (scanning service)- All our client machines point to our internal smtp server only, then the server relays it to MessageLabs. In the past our clients pointed to MessageLabs but one machine got infected sending 100s of messages and our domain got black listed (it took me 1 week to figure it out!!!) We have around 400 email users with maybe 10 concurrent and we don't see any performance degradation. Elliott Bujan Initial Plants -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Scott Heath Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 4:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Policing Users I've got port 25 outbound blocked at my firewall. It only allows my designated mail servers to talk to the internet via port 25, this way in the unlikely event we do contract a virus that sets itself up as an SMTP engine it wont do any damage to my outbound bandwidth, and only internal bandwidth will suffer...now since I've gotten rid of the hubs and put switches in I think that only that machine will suffer providing its not scanning the subnet. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Andreou Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [IMail Forum] Policing Users Just out of curiosity, how does everyone here "police" their users? I have to assume that you don't mean blocking all traffic on port 25, so what steps do you guys (and I mean list-wide) take to identify/prevent such abuse? -Jeff At 01:02 PM 6/24/2004 -0500, you wrote: >don't assume they don't have a clue. I assume they have the means, but it >costs to implement, and right now, it's NOT costing them anything NOT to >implement policing. > >ASTA's punitive "block 'em" is intended to make not policing their >networks a very costly, and publicly negative, stance. > >Len --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.710 / Virus Database: 466 - Release Date: 6/23/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.710 / Virus Database: 466 - Release Date: 6/23/2004 To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
