RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL--FOLLOW UP!

2009-08-21 Thread Carl Houseman
Friday, August 21, 2009 10:26 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL--FOLLOW UP! On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Murray Freeman wrote: > If we use the *...@alant.org in the SPF, we then create a problem with legitimate > email coming from an external mail se

Re: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL--FOLLOW UP!

2009-08-21 Thread Ben Scott
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Murray Freeman wrote: > If we use the *...@alant.org in the SPF, we then create a problem with > legitimate > email coming from an external mail server, our website which is hosted by a > third party. As ME2 says, you should add your web server's IP address to t

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL--FOLLOW UP!

2009-08-20 Thread Carl Houseman
You won't find a way to do setup exceptions to sender filtering because there's no such facility (short of a custom event sink anyway). Time to ask yourself, is it REALLY necessary that this external website generate E-mails that appear to come from our internal users? Do those messages need

Re: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL--FOLLOW UP!

2009-08-20 Thread Micheal Espinola Jr
You can use the "include" option if you can do it based on sender domain name, or use the "ip4" option to specify specific valid sending IP4 addresses. e.g. You can easily just add 'include:constantcontact.com" if you need to allow ConstantContact to send emails on your behalf, and you trust that

Re: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Eric Woodford
59 PM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL > > > > One note of warning. I've tried to do this before, but quickly found out my > entire sales department used a product that sent daily reports where their > email addres

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Don Andrews
Hmm, you let those other sites to send email claiming to be you? - pretty trusting. From: Eric Woodford [mailto:ericwoodf...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL One

Re: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Eric Woodford
Robert [mailto:bch...@medaille.edu] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:19 PM > > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL > > > > Do you just add a rule with your domain listed? > > > -- > >

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Don Andrews
Excellent answer - FAR better than Outlook even for small orgs. From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:28 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL It's not a rule a

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Carl Houseman
er filtering on the SMTP VS. From: Chyka, Robert [mailto:bch...@medaille.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:19 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL Do you just add a rule with your domain listed? _ From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.hou

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Chyka, Robert
Do you just add a rule with your domain listed? From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:16 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL Absolutely, that's what the OP asked

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Carl Houseman
Absolutely, that's what the OP asked about and that's what I answered about. From: Chyka, Robert [mailto:bch...@medaille.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL On Exchange 2003 too? _

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Chyka, Robert
On Exchange 2003 too? From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL Exchange's sender filtering can also block inbound Internet mail

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Carl Houseman
Exchange's sender filtering can also block inbound Internet mail from your own domain. Carl From: Senter, John [mailto:john.sen...@etrade.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:54 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL What inbound mail gatew

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Senter, John
: RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL You could look up info about the "Sender ID". Maybe implementing it helps. Markko Meriniit -Original Message- From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:28 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Vincent DeSouza
: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL You could look up info about the "Sender ID". Maybe implementing it helps. Markko Meriniit -Original Message- From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:28 AM To: M

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-18 Thread Markko Meriniit
You could look up info about the "Sender ID". Maybe implementing it helps. Markko Meriniit -Original Message- From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:28 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL Lately we're get

RE: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-05 Thread Bill Songstad (WCUL)
If you are a single server exchange operation, you can create an Outlook rule that checks the header for @alanet.org and delete it or move it to a spam folder. Real internal email won't have anything in the headers. Of course that will also affect any legitimately spoofed email. (travel confirma

Re: BLOCKING SPOOFED INTERNAL EMAIL

2009-08-05 Thread Steve Ens
Ninja does a good job at blocking these...i don't think Outlook is smart enough. On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Murray Freeman wrote: > Lately we're getting a lot of sp*m that appear to be coming from our own > staff. It's easy to spot, but our sp*m filter isn't catching them. The > reason the