[isalist] Re: SurfControl...
- From: "Ball, Dan" <DBall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:35:40 -0500
If we were "just" 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 "categories" 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 doesn't 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, that's the diff; if the ISV responds properly to customer
complaints, PSS never hears of it.
The sad part is that those ISVs that don't respond appropriately get
shuffled off to PSS for resolution.
I've 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 wouldn't 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, it's amazing how a broken plug-in can bring down an
ISA server.
What's interesting is that I've seen many PSS cases for Web Sense, Surf
Control and Trend, but nary a one for GFI.
Wonder what David thinks of that?
:-)
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
All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
Other related posts:
