Yes. You are then basically using the first solution. Then your internal
SMTP will never get used.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:22 AM, David W. McSpadden wrote:
> It is the second.
> Is there a way to set my internal DNS to point the smtp and pop to the
> Ironport?? The Ironport doe
It is the second.
Is there a way to set my internal DNS to point the smtp and pop to the
Ironport?? The Ironport does not use the internal DNS so it would not be
affected and I already have an imcu.com zone built???
From: Kevin Lundy
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:14 AM
To: NT System Admin
Is smtp.imcu.com your email provider or is that your internal host?
If email provider: change your clients to use ironport for SMTP, and set the
smarthost on the IronPort to be smtp.imcu.com Set the IronPort to allow
your clients to relay.
If it is your internal host, what Brian described is
Currently all users using outlook express and point to smtp.imcu.com and
pop.imcu.com.
From: Brian Desmond
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:29 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Ironport
Set the smarthost on the existing SMTP server to be IronPort, set the smarthost
on IronPort to
Set the smarthost on the existing SMTP server to be IronPort, set the smarthost
on IronPort to be the ISP.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com<mailto:br...@briandesmond.com>
c - 312.731.3132
From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:05
I want all my users pop/smtp mail to be forwarded through my Ironport device
then send on to my ISP/email provider.
Anyone have any ideas?
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
Subject: Re: Ironport question
David - other than this bandwidth question, how are you finding the comparison
between Ironport and Websense?
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, David W. McSpadden wrote:
You had it right the first time I think.
I have both email appliance and url filtering
David - other than this bandwidth question, how are you finding the
comparison between Ironport and Websense?
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, David W. McSpadden wrote:
> You had it right the first time I think.
> I have both email appliance and url filtering appliance.
> The url
Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Ironport question
>
> I don't think you can get the effect you want this side of your upstream.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM, David W. McSpadden wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know if the ironport url blocking appliance blocks the
>>
mp;T is showing
the traffic that ironport is stating is getting blocked???
From: Kennedy, Jim
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Ironport question
Ok, had some more coffee. This is url blocking in email.
Yes, the Ironport is accepting
So you are saying I am using the bandwidth.
Then I am killing it afterwards.
From: G.Waleed Kavalec
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:15 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Ironport question
I don't think you can get the effect you want this side of your upstream.
On Thu
Ok, had some more coffee. This is url blocking in email.
Yes, the Ironport is accepting the traffic then blocking it on the machine.
Outside hosting of email filtering fixes that if it is an issue for you, but
less control over the system. Pick your poison.
From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:kennedy
It is blocking requests from your users to bad websites? Then no, your users
request www.BadURL.com<http://www.BadURL.com> and the ironport tells them no
right away. It does not fetch the pages and then tell them no.
Or is it blocking access to your internal website/systems from bad
I don't think you can get the effect you want this side of your upstream.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM, David W. McSpadden wrote:
> Does anyone know if the ironport url blocking appliance blocks the
> traffic prior to it ingressing the network.
>
> I am having bandwidth
Does anyone know if the ironport url blocking appliance blocks the traffic
prior to it ingressing the network.
I am having bandwidth issues and I see the ironport blocking gigs of requests
but I have heard that the data comes into the ironport and gets knocked down
there.
Well that would have
My ironport s needed sawmill to get the granular reporting that websense had.
High level reporting out of the box but detailed reporting has to be configured
in sawmill.
From: James Rankin
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:32 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Ironport S-Series
Hi guys
Hi guys / gals
We have recently gotten an IronPort for mail filtering and are quite
impressed by its performance, so much so we are considering going to the
S-class IronPort for web filtering as well. We currently have WebSense and
it needs constant attention, although the reporting side of it is
17 matches
Mail list logo
