Re: Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?
From: Daniel Billingsley (dbillingsley_at_NO.durcon.SPAAMM.com)
Date: 12/09/03
- Next message: Joe joek63_at_hotmail.com: "Message Rules, Outlook Express"
- Previous message: Barry: "Re: scam?"
- In reply to: sP: "Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?"
- Next in thread: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?"
- Reply: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?"
- Reply: Charles Otstot: "Re: Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:52:52 -0500
How is that true?
"sP" <littlechild_zu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:023f01c3be76$413b0070$a101280a@phx.gbl...
>
> However, the "keep it secure as possible" part of me says
> to keep servers off the domain that don't need to be. This
> would be a bit more work but makes since.
>
- Next message: Joe joek63_at_hotmail.com: "Message Rules, Outlook Express"
- Previous message: Barry: "Re: scam?"
- In reply to: sP: "Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?"
- Next in thread: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?"
- Reply: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?"
- Reply: Charles Otstot: "Re: Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
