OT: Cisco NAC

Spam detection software, running on the system "groupstudy.com", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
admin_at_groupstudy.com for details.

Content preview: Hi all, I met a client that wants to deploy a NAC solution
   but is troubled about the "too many boxes (components) of a full blown Cisco
   NAC deployment." Please can you guys make a case for or against Cisco NAC.
   [...]

Content analysis details: (5.7 points, 5.0 required)

 pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
                            [score: 1.0000]
-0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
                            trust
                            [209.85.215.43 listed in list.dnswl.org]
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is freemail (dhackdheolu[at]gmail.com)
 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                            CUSTOM_MED
 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 0.9 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit, and not from a mailing list
Received: from mail-ew0-f43.google.com (mail-ew0-f43.google.com
  [209.85.215.43]) by groupstudy.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with
  ESMTP id oBL1vXdK011301 GroupStudy Mailer; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:57:33
  -0500
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so2265703ewy.30 for
  <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:57:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com;
  s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:x-rim-org-msg-ref-id
  :return-receipt-to:disposition-notification-to:message-id
  :content-transfer-encoding:reply-to:x-priority:sensitivity
  :importance:subject:to:from:date:content-type:mime-version;
  bh=4JXrA113vVAJVLdkFs8iIjXRBvh3gVouLwp2W6SF0ps=;
  b=lENtKpZcmomSTFiY3Uhx9U0iHVAxgs62SWhcrYxVuPetXPSc/ajaOvpz1fOYGSTSl7
  6OsWLApgT7pNSCs1yMu+jLQWIgNzt4ziRTViY9We6+lBtRhDfAFmbpxVwW6kR02fxNKn
  fYLmNyG/ryRViLQo0s2ci/6x0+vb6y0GwYKzI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
  h=x-rim-org-msg-ref-id:return-receipt-to:disposition-notification-to
  :message-id:content-transfer-encoding:reply-to:x-priority
  :sensitivity:importance:subject:to:from:date:content-type
  :mime-version;
  b=xSvPxCdSXD89DHnYFiMfgABCgNv707DKrKBrunL+On+3aBL7j1z9i87VGbQlOXAjFA
  BRsAB1exn/hXa3AF30R2nb0mf+W/BNsaX0jbjTjfqmQzp+Byi0sWVaUrMEsXvDmJKTVh
  zFB3BKU1qv20LEi9s8Id3JADPaLtAvR908DYI=
Received: by 10.213.28.139 with SMTP id
  m11mr1586847ebc.86.1292896652613; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:57:32 -0800
  (PST)
Received: from ups29.c19.bise7.blackberry
  (bda-178-239-87-113.bis7.eu.blackberry.com [178.239.87.113]) by
  mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t50sm3364308eeh.0.2010.12.20.17.57.30
  (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:57:31 -0800 (PST)
X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 894234530
Return-Receipt-To: dhackdheolu_at_gmail.com
Disposition-Notification-To: dhackdheolu_at_gmail.com
Message-ID: <894234530-1292896648-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-656961930-_at_b26.c19.bise7.blackberry>
Reply-To: dhackdheolu_at_gmail.com
X-Priority: Normal
Sensitivity: Normal
Importance: Normal
Subject: OT: Cisco NAC
To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
From: dhackdheolu_at_gmail.com
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:56:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by groupstudy.com id
  oBL1vXdK011301

Hi all,

I met a client that wants to deploy a NAC solution but is troubled about the "too many boxes (components) of a full blown Cisco NAC deployment."

Please can you guys make a case for or against Cisco NAC.

Thank you.
Sent from my BlackBerry. Smartphone, from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed internet service with Etisalat easy net, available at all our experience centres

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Dec 21 2010 - 01:56:29 ART