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: 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
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.
Chuck
-----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"
backscatter
to forged envelope/From: addresses? Think carefully before answering.
--
-- Todd Vierling <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
|