OT: F-Prot

[Res]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Drew Marshall wrote:

> Yes. On my home box, updates.f-prot.com is not reachable or so the logs 
> claim. Last attempt was at about 6.20am GMT.

Seems to be OK this morning now.

> Just on another question, which licence do you buy from them? I have been

mail server, they clearly state it's the only way we can.

> f-prot site to look for licensing, and none really fit. The machines are 
> gateways so no mailboxes as required for the mail server version (So how many 
> mailboxes would you buy for? This option could become expensive pretty

This is exactly my sticking point with them, they do not take into account 
licenseing for gateways, however they state if a gateway we must use mail 
server, like you, my mail gateways also have no local users and as to 
the letter of their license reqiuirments, rightly or wrongly, I chose 1-10 
users since they do not offer a 0 user mailbox license :) when I used to 
have time to IRC, I used to sit in a sys-adminy type channel on undernet, 
lot of network admins admited to doing it this way, so it was the way I 
opted for.

Even more stupidly, they used to offer an IBM server linux license that 
covered both, their license scheme is a complete utter joke, I'd be 
more than happy to pay a file server license per server on gateway machines
and sec MX's, if they made it clear, its currently confusing, and clear as
mud. For those who want to pay per mailbox who have local users, thats 
clear, for the rest it's not, and I would have thought by now they would 
have ammended it to gateways being included in fileserver.

Based on their current methods if I had to pay per user, just imagine a 
mere 100 clueless hosting clients all activating catch-alls and spammers 
finding them, I could be up for a horrendous amount in fees, even though
the mailboxes are not on the same machine.


-- 
Cheers
Res


Let Novell known what you think of their back door deal with the devil.
Sign the petition today:   http://techp.org/p/1/