pilot error? or idiots at microsoft?

[Michael Scheidell]

On 8/10/11 10:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 08/10/11 10:26, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>> so, what brain decided it would be ok to use 169.* addresses for their
>> internal ip's?
>>
>> was it microsoft? (var says that ms uses these for their internal
>> clustering ip's for clustered exchange servers
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address
>
I am moving more to assume ms are idiots.  this seems to be the default 
config for exchange clusters.

So, we open a bugzilla and put 169.254* addresses into 'local_networks' 
by default? like rfc1918?
it the example, sa sees the internal (trusted) 172* ip, and sees 'first 
untrusted' (the 169* address!)
spf fails, rbls are consulted. all could be avoided if ms actually 
followed RFC's

<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/gg314976.aspx>
-- 
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
 >*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation

    * Best Mobile Solutions Product of 2011
    * Best Intrusion Prevention Product
    * Hot Company Finalist 2011
    * Best Email Security Product
    * Certified SNORT Integrator


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r). 
For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
______________________________________________________________________  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.amavis.org/pipermail/amavis-users/attachments/20110810/f6286d69/attachment.html>