× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Hello Jim,

Am 25.05.2022 um 14:17 schrieb Jim Oberholtzer <midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

VPN connections still have rules that apply.

This highly depends on the detailed implementation. Technically, as well as policies imposed by company rules. And personal taste of the main admin.

Just because the “same subnet” is in place does not mitigate those rules.

Unlikely. I have never seen any company doing Firewalling on layer 2 in my whole career as network admin. But then, most companies I worked with are on the small to medium scale. I have tinkered with it myself using Cisco ASA, but only to see how it works.

Maybe big companies do it, but then I fail to see a benefit besides keeping a long ago established huge L2 domain beings stretched over WAN links. To me, a failure in proper network planning.

But I digress. ;-)

In any case, does it hurt to look?

Of course not.

Again, does it hurt to look and understand the environment a bit more clearly?

The answer is again: No. :-)

The limitation I referred to is on any/all file movement, not to only email, which considering the situation would not apply anyway.

Again, this depends on the technical implementation. Technically, as well as policies imposed by company rules. And personal taste of the main admin. :-)

I have not yet seen a firewall solution which allows to limit a file's passing through it on the network layer when the amount of bytes exceeds a configurable size. "Firewall" is often misused for any perimeter securing device. Some include an SMTP relay, some a web proxy, and blur the definition even more. Both of these proxies are a feasible way to limit file sizes passing the device, because the actual file can be extracted more or less easily prior to pass it along. But I've not yet seen a device allowing to limit the traffic to a certain byte count being passed between any two endpoints via rule. To me, this just doesn't make sense. Instead such a function would introduce a lot of abuse with a following shit storm from users not being able to do their usual things. :-)

:wq! PoC

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2023 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.