North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober)
- From: Christian Kuhtz
- Date: Sun Dec 04 22:36:52 2005
Better safe than sorry. Unless you can determine that it isn't
forged, you shouldn't be sending anything because there is so much
out there forging From: addresses (or To: for that matter, with Bcc:).
So, this isn't about ideal vs ok-close-enough. Don't send me crap
unless you have a reasonable level of confidence. I don't believe
that you can pass a straight face test with virus scanning responses
on that one.
If you can, I think you need your head examined ;-)
On Dec 4, 2005, at 10:27 PM, Church, Chuck wrote:
What about all the viruses out there that don't forge addresses?
Sending a warning message makes sense for these. Unless someone has
done the research to determine the majority of viruses forge
you really can't complain about the fact that the default is to warn.
Calling vendors 'clueless' because a default doesn't match your
a little extreme, don't you think? The ideal solution would be for
scanning software to send a warning only if the virus detected is
to use real addresses, otherwise it won't warn.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 4:53 PM
Subject: RE: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober)
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, W.D.McKinney wrote:
(Virus "warnings" to forged addresses are UBE, plain and simple.)
Since when? I disagree.
UBE = "unsolicited bulk e-mail".
Which of those three words do[es] not apply to virus "warning"
to forged envelope/From: addresses? Think carefully before answering.
-- Todd Vierling <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>