[70543] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue May 18 17:20:43 2004
To: "Christopher X. Candreva" <chris@westnet.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 May 2004 16:56:30 EDT."
<Pine.GSO.4.60.0405181653340.4129@westnet.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:19:52 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1560074080P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:56:30 EDT, "Christopher X. Candreva" <chris@westnet.com> said:
> But if you really need a reason to convince someone who won't get their head
> out of their . . . the sand -- You can probably cut in half the number of
> viruses you have to scan if you reject invalid addresses up front, meaning
> you can buy a smaller/ fewer virus scanner(s).
>
> Which means the companies making them have absolutely no incentive to add
> this feature.
Right. Mirapoints are that way too (at least in our configuration). And yes,
we'll probably have to buy a 5th Mirapoint and/or upgrade our current 4 sooner
because of it - but the incremental cost for that is *still* lower than the
cost of replacing them with another vendor's gear....
Now how do you explain to the CFO that in order to get around a $50K upgrade
to the current gear, you want to spend $200K to bring in another vendor? :)
--==_Exmh_1560074080P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFAqn34cC3lWbTT17ARApbUAKD0d6fN2Puq1C1jBHDPbe17M+zTiwCg3cAR
CYRwVL4FoS6jhor9fGTWCMA=
=uZ5D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1560074080P--
