Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall

Valdis.Kletnieks at Valdis.Kletnieks at
Tue May 18 21:19:52 UTC 2004

On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:56:30 EDT, "Christopher X. Candreva" <chris at>  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? :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list