[isalist] Re: SurfControl...
- From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:08:16 -0800
That¹s ³The San Francisco Treat,² right?
t
On 1/9/07 11:59 AM, "John T (Lists)" <johnlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> spoketh
to all:
> Sir, you are jumping into a conversation injecting your thoughts and opinions
> where they do not belong. The fact is I use a different product/vendor for
> content control through categories and policies.
>
> If you would bother to fully read and understand what I posted, the complaint
> is about the lack of certain features in GFI WebMonitor that therefore require
> the use of a separate full featured content control software. GFI WebMonitor
> is the best around for virus scanning of incoming content and file type policy
> enforcement. It is however severely lacking in content control through web
> filtering of categories. GFI WebMonitor replaced GFI Download Security with
> the premise that the product was going to include content control so that 2
> separate products were not needed. If falls far short.
>
> As some one who relied upon GFI Download Security, the promises of improved
> features and functions in the replacement product have not come to fruitation.
> (Timmy, figure that one out.)
>
>
> John T
> eServices For You
>
> "Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood."
> Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of D PIETRUSZKA USWRN INTERLINK INFRA ASST MGR
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:28 AM
> To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isalist] Re: SurfControl...
>
> So because you don¹t want I can¹t mention websense? If you use a crappy tool
> to do webfiltering, then you will have problems with your users, did you
> expect something different?
>
>
> Regards
> Diego R. Pietruszka
>
> From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of John T (Lists)
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:56 PM
> To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isalist] Re: SurfControl...
>
> The topic that this strayed to is specifically how GFI implements content
> control. Yes, there are other content control products out there that work as
> expected.
>
>
> John T
> eServices For You
>
> "Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood."
> Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of D PIETRUSZKA USWRN INTERLINK INFRA ASST MGR
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 10:49 AM
> To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isalist] Re: SurfControl...
>
> Did you think about Websense?
>
>
> Regards
> Diego R. Pietruszka
>
> From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Ball, Dan
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:36 PM
> To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isalist] Re: SurfControl...
>
> If we were ³just² filtering adult material, I think it would be acceptable.
> However, we have many different layers of filtering, such as employees can
> access web-based mail but students cannot, etc? The ability to use
> ³categories² of websites to limit who can get to what is almost indispensable
> here!
>
>
>
> From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of John T (Lists)
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:25 PM
> To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'David Farinic'
> Subject: [isalist] Re: SurfControl...
>
> Ah, some one reporting my pet-peeve about GFI. Yes, the fact that it only does
> content control via a round about way for only one category is a big draw
> back. I currently only use GFI WebMonitor for virus scanning of content and
> file type policy enforcement. If they would include full proper content
> filtering by category, (and by a source other than Yahoo,) I would not have to
> deal with 2 vendors.
>
>
> John T
> eServices For You
>
> "Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood."
> Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Ball, Dan
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:16 AM
> To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isalist] Re: SurfControl...
>
> I will give SurfControl credit in that they spent an hour on the phone doing
> remote assistance with me to resolve it, although it did take about an hour
> just to get the phone call through?
>
> Trying their newest version now; so I will see if this one performs better
> than the last one.
>
> Too bad GFI doesn¹t support multiple categories!
>
>
>
> From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:06 PM
> To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isalist] Re: SurfControl...
>
> See, that¹s the diff; if the ISV responds properly to customer complaints, PSS
> never hears of it.
> The sad part is that those ISVs that don¹t respond appropriately get shuffled
> off to PSS for resolution.
> I¹ve not had to work with GFI at all in a negative context, which only means
> that if PSS got such a call, they were able to resolve it either with or
> without GFI involvement.
>
> The fact that Web Sense, Surf Control and Trend pop immediately to my mind in
> the context of PSS calls says nothing conclusive.
>
>
> From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of David Farinic
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:55 AM
> To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isalist] Re: SurfControl...
>
> Well we are not that innocent either, otherwise I wouldn¹t code ISA
> crashmonitor which logs last function calls in ISA ISAPI calls ;)
> Especially with new flood of multicores ISA servers we got reported more
> issues however we responded and now it seems all OK.
>
> Regards DavidF
>
>
>
> From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Jim Harrison
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isalist] Re: SurfControl...
>
> To be more general, it¹s amazing how a broken plug-in can bring down an ISA
> server.
> What¹s interesting is that I¹ve seen many PSS cases for Web Sense, Surf
> Control and Trend, but nary a one for GFI.
> Wonder what David thinks of that?
> J
>
>
> From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Ball, Dan
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:18 AM
> To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [isalist] SurfControl...
>
>
> Just an observation: It is truly amazing at how quickly and completely a
> corrupt rule in SurfControl can bring down an ISA server!
>
> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>
>
> DISCLAIMER
> The information contained in this electronic mail may be confidential or
> legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient(s) only. Should you
> receive this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this
> mail. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the
> individual sender and not of GFI. Unauthorized use of the contents is strictly
> prohibited. While all care has been taken, GFI is not responsible for the
> integrity of the contents of this electronic mail and any attachments included
> within.
>
> This mail was checked for viruses by GFI MailSecurity. GFI also develops
> anti-spam software (GFI MailEssentials), a fax server (GFI FAXmaker), and
> network security and management software (GFI LANguard) - www.gfi.com
> <http://www.gfi.com>
>
> All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
>
Other related posts:
