Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >And anyhow, using a router block is a bad idea in this case. There's two >cases - either you still have machines using that vendor's software, and you >WANT them to reach the servers so they can update, > > That doesn't necessarily follow. I read a report (*) today that the EULA for XP/SP1 and 2000/SP3 states that, if you use automatic updates, you grant MS, and its designated agents, access to your "software information"--which is vague enough to include any data on your system. That's probably not what they intended, but the possibility is bad enough that financial and medical institutions in the US (and, probably, all companies in Europe) cannot legally use the automatic update systems, because they would be violating privacy laws. So a company might decide that they had to ban autoupdate, and do all updates manually, in which case it would be reasonable for them to block access to the update servers. (*) http://cin.earthweb.com/article/1,3555,10493_1485861,00.html -- /===============================================================\ |John Stracke |jstracke@centivinc.com | |Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com | |Centiv |My opinions are my own. | |===============================================================| |If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!| \===============================================================/