What a maroon... Kurt
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 13:37, Sherry Abercrombie <saber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Kurt....we are looking at making some changes. These *nix servers at > the colo were setup by someone else a couple of years ago, we inherited the > management of them last year. Finding things like this is good. Like I > said, we found it & corrected it BEFORE users noticed they weren't getting > all their email. That means they won't be complaining, and that keeps us > happy ;) > > Now to take it OT, did anyone see this little article on Fox News today? > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582012,00.html > > The ultimate definition of an ID10T....... > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ahhhhhh.... >> >> We'll that's not a mistake I'd expect you to make, anyway. >> >> Make sure you clue that person into the Sought rules, and also make >> sure that he/she is aware that 3.3 is coming out RSN... >> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 13:12, Sherry Abercrombie <saber...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Yeah, but someone (not me), did not setup saupdate...... >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> The spamassassin issue was resolved within 24 hours, if you had a >> >> current version of spamassassin installed and saupdate turned on... >> >> >> >> I saw a few messages with this score, but none of them made it to a >> >> spam folder - they were otherwise not scored high enough to push them >> >> over the edge. >> >> >> >> I think the German ATM issue is the most interesting case I've seen so >> >> far, however. >> >> >> >> Kurt >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:41, Sherry Abercrombie <saber...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Welllllll, how interesting. This list has just made me look like a >> >> > brilliant admin. once again. Thanks to the person that posted about >> >> > the >> >> > issue with SpamAssassin, we use SA and upon investigation have >> >> > observed >> >> > behavior stated in the link provided. Thankfully, we discovered it >> >> > before >> >> > our users noticed, and are taking action to correct. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks joeuser for posting that! >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Michael B. Smith >> >> > <mich...@smithcons.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Pfft. If you did (or they did), you wouldn’t have this problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> For all that COBOL is maligned, there are still millions upon >> >> >> millions >> >> >> of >> >> >> lines of COBOL in use, the world over. It’s not going anywhere >> >> >> anytime >> >> >> soon. >> >> >> It’s just not “cool” anymore. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Alex Eckelberry [mailto:al...@sunbelt-software.com] >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:57 PM >> >> >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> >> Subject: RE: 2010 date problems anyone? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That’s because we don’t code in COBOL. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> >> >> <Running and ducking at the same time> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com] >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:21 AM >> >> >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> >> Subject: Re: 2010 date problems anyone? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Vipre had no issues with the date change...... >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Glen Johnson <gjohn...@vhcc.edu> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> After reading lots of posts, “they say” that the problem is only in >> >> >> the >> >> >> SEPM code. Standalone clients aren’t affected. Standalone clients >> >> >> will >> >> >> still get the 12/31/2009 dated defs as it can cause problems if a >> >> >> client, >> >> >> like my laptop, gets it defs directly from Symantec, unless it is at >> >> >> work, >> >> >> where it then gets them from our SEPM server. >> >> >> >> >> >> They are still releasing updated defs, but the date for these >> >> >> updated >> >> >> defs >> >> >> are still listed as 12/31/2009 They are just incrementing the rev >> >> >> number. >> >> >> >> >> >> It seems that if SEPM gets a def with 2010 date, it calculates that >> >> >> this >> >> >> new def is outdated and throws it away. >> >> >> >> >> >> They will start sending out 2010 dated defs after the SEPM fix is >> >> >> available, either manually or automatically via Live Update. >> >> >> >> >> >> Current defs as of today are 12/31/2009 rev 116. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: HELP_PC [mailto:g...@enter.it] >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:35 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> >> >> >> >> Subject: R: 2010 date problems anyone? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I wonder wether they'll provide a patch also for standalone >> >> >> unmanaged >> >> >> clients >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> GuidoElia >> >> >> >> >> >> HELPPC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> Da: Glen Johnson [mailto:gjohn...@vhcc.edu] >> >> >> Inviato: martedì 5 gennaio 2010 16.04 >> >> >> A: NT System Admin Issues >> >> >> Oggetto: RE: 2010 date problems anyone? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yep. Just got this about Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Symantec Endpoint Protection Management Server considers any >> >> >> definition >> >> >> updates dated after December 31, 2009 to be out-of-date. >> >> >> >> >> >> Any definitions dated in 2010 are being thrown away without being >> >> >> sent >> >> >> to >> >> >> client computers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> As a temporary fix, Symantec is dating all Symantec Endpoint >> >> >> Protection >> >> >> definition updates as December 31, 2009. The revision number is >> >> >> being >> >> >> updated. For details, please see: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ent-security.nsf/docid/201001030857 >> >> >> >> >> >> 1348 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Symantec intends to correct the SEPM server code by distributing >> >> >> a >> >> >> code >> >> >> patch with Live Update definitions. Until Symantec corrects their >> >> >> code >> >> >> in >> >> >> ours and other servers, users will see Live Update virus definition >> >> >> date of >> >> >> Thursday, December 31, 2009 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: David Lum [mailto:david....@nwea.org] >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:36 AM >> >> >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> >> Subject: 2010 date problems anyone? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=7873 >> >> >> >> >> >> David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER >> >> >> NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION >> >> >> (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Sherry Abercrombie >> >> >> >> >> >> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from >> >> >> magic." >> >> >> Arthur C. Clarke >> >> >> Sent from Keller, TX, United States >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Sherry Abercrombie >> >> > >> >> > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from >> >> > magic." >> >> > Arthur C. Clarke >> >> > Sent from Keller, TX, United States >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Sherry Abercrombie >> > >> > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." >> > Arthur C. Clarke >> > Sent from Keller, TX, United States >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> > > > > -- > Sherry Abercrombie > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." > Arthur C. Clarke > Sent from Keller, TX, United States > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
