North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober)

  • From: Church, Chuck
  • Date: Sun Dec 04 22:29:07 2005

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 addresses,
you really can't complain about the fact that the default is to warn.
Calling vendors 'clueless' because a default doesn't match your needs is
a little extreme, don't you think?  The ideal solution would be for the
scanning software to send a warning only if the virus detected is known
to use real addresses, otherwise it won't warn.


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Todd Vierling
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 4:53 PM
To: W.D.McKinney
Cc: [email protected]
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 protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>