Re: [OT} virii
From: DalePres (don-t-spa-m-me_at_lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com)
Date: 03/26/04
- Next message: Consultant: "Re: Another useless poll"
- Previous message: Ken Briscoe: "Re: Another useless poll"
- In reply to: Neil: "Re: [OT} virii"
- Next in thread: Rowdy Yates: "Re: [OT} virii"
- Reply: Rowdy Yates: "Re: [OT} virii"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:23:26 -0600
Apparently you didn't read my post carefully so let me quote from my
original response:
"Or the decision maker who wouldn't authorize whatever
protections and policies the admin asked for "
Please not that I automatically assume that you have most likely asked for:
1. the appropriate versions of outlook or outlook security patches that
block executable attachments,
2. appropriate patch management software and/or staffing levels that
allow you to keep your patches updated
3. network filters, proxies, firewalls, etc. to block ports used by
viruses.
and that your manager or corporate types turned down your request.
Second quote:
"There's little to no excuse "
I understand that there's always the possibility of a flaw being detected
and spreading a virus before Microsoft or AV companies issue appropriate
patches.
Dale
"Neil" <neilmcse@nospamforyou.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94B865561A464neilmcsehotmailcom@207.46.248.16...
> Rowdy Yates <rowdy_yates2@removethis.lycos.com> wrote in
> news:Xns94B85F38D34D7rowdyyates2123@207.46.248.16:
>
> > please do share you expertise....
> >
>
> I don't believe Dale has the pleasure of a pointy haired boss, who
believes
> that no one should be restricted from recieving all of thier email...
>
> :)
>
> --
> Neil
> "you'd do what, to who, for how many biscuits?"
- Next message: Consultant: "Re: Another useless poll"
- Previous message: Ken Briscoe: "Re: Another useless poll"
- In reply to: Neil: "Re: [OT} virii"
- Next in thread: Rowdy Yates: "Re: [OT} virii"
- Reply: Rowdy Yates: "Re: [OT} virii"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|