ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:17 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: IMC as SMTP internet gateway
>
> Good point.
> I was thinking strictly in terms of AV, but if the gateway is applying
> those
> lovely disclaimers etc etc, then obviously
Discussions
Subject: RE: IMC as SMTP internet gateway
> couldn't you remove the need for
> the separate SMTP gateway solution?
That depends entirely on what the SMTP gateway solution was doing. I don't
believe there's anywhere close to a 1 to 1 feature map between MMS and
Sy
part on the functionality
desired from an SMTP gateway machine.
> -Original Message-
> From: Brock, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:38 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: IMC as SMTP internet gateway
>
> We are looking
Yes.
-Original Message-
From: Brock, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: IMC as SMTP internet gateway
We are looking into replacing InoculateIT with Sybari Antigen.
Currently we run an SMTP gateway (Tumbleweed
We are looking into replacing InoculateIT with Sybari Antigen.
Currently we run an SMTP gateway (Tumbleweed MMS) that connects to the IMC of our
Exchange bridgehead server.
Utilizing Sybari's Antigen on the IMC, couldn't you remove the need for the separate
SMTP gateway solution?
Thanks for a
5 matches
Mail list logo
