I can verify this as well. We block all windows ports, in and out, and
have a few clients that we've had to put exclusions in the filters for. Get
this, they're in the US, their Exchange server is in the UK, and instead of
doing a VPN between their office (of 20 employees) and the remote office
Kandra didn't say that they CANNOT modify DNS responses, just that they were
not going to.
william
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: Change to .com/.net behavior
>
> >
Why not just make your users use your servers for forwarding DNS and block
outbound DNS requests @ your router for anything but your servers.
I mean, if you're going to go to the extreme & force your users to not have
access to something they might like (for some unknown reason), might as well
go
I had the exact same problem. As soon as I turned it on, within minutes I
had customers calling that could no longer FTP into Win2k servers and some
that couldn't SSH into their Linux servers.
I've since turned it off as well.
Are there any other known ways to block this?
william
- Original
Transit, mis-spoke.
william
- Original Message -
From: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Devine II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless, Verio and/
Can anyone from these three carriers tell me if you're doing port blocking
on the Windows file/print ports (135-139, 445 & 593) ?
A client of ours (in the US), against our recommendation, still wants to
connect to their Exchange server in the UK without a VPN. We're not
blocking their IP#'s from
I would think that any company that outsourced exchange services to another
entity would want either a VPN between their two offices or a direct PtP
link.
But I also know that the most logical method is not always understandable to
the pointy haired people.
william
- Original Message -
e interested in the comparison of features, but if I have to install
OTRS to compare, then I will spare some time to try it out in due course.
-Wash
* Joseph Mucheru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030803 09:49]: wrote:
>
>
> -- Forwarded Message
> From: "William Devine, II"
I started using OTRS (Open Ticket Request System) a month or so ago and LOVE
IT. You can setup pre-canned response templates and have multiple users
login and maintain various queues. It's open source and works VERY well.
http://www.otrs.org/
william
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
>From C&W in Houston
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# traceroute 206.103.37.166
traceroute to 206.103.37.166 (206.103.37.166), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 GB-border1 (208.128.33.1) 0.433 ms 0.295 ms 0.229 ms
2 63-137-112-213 (63.137.112.213) 1.301 ms 1.166 ms 1.363 ms
3 bar2-serial4-0-0-8.
Must've been a doubly hard day huh?
william
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Callahan, Richard M, SOLGV
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:01 PM
To: Stephen Sprunk; LeBlanc, Robert
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S
We used to do NAT for DSL customers as well. We started with two T1's to
Verizon, Cisco 3620 for DSL only and had problems here and there (couldn't
stop packets between customers in the same bridge group, such as netbios
broadcasts but could ACL tcp/udp connections between them easily.) We
switc
12 matches
Mail list logo
