True.....after the arguments today my opinion on the subject has changed -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Molkentin Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Virus Notifications to Sender?
Chris, As much as I appreciate your POV, I will have to ring Ed's mantra in on this: "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioural problems". We must encourage (or train ourselves) all these kinds of users that we know that the Internet is not a "safe" place. E-mail cannot be taken at face value. E-innocence is long lost. It is not worth giving all those "baddies" valid e-mail addresses just because we want to protect Mom or Aunt Ethel. <<sigh>> My $0.02 (inc GST). themolk. > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 11 June 2003 1:14 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Virus Notifications to Sender? > > > For us the 1% just happened to be one of our employees > mother. She was receiving those "what was that strange > message you sent?" for at least 3 months from people. It > wasn't until she sent a message here, got one of our virus > notifications and then eventually asked me about it, that the > problem got cleared up. This was some 70ish year old woman > that uses her computer for e-mail, small time web surfing, > the occasional online banking session, and the perfect target > for virus writers. > > For me it's more then worth it if you can help one person > from sending viruses to the rest of us. If I get accused of > being a spammer for sending those notifications, then so be > it. Don't send me viruses and I won't send you those > notifications in the first place. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Harmer, Michael > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Virus Notifications to Sender? > > > First, let me say that I understand what your saying if you > are saying that you are concerned about the 1% and wish to > help make the internet a better place by assisting them to > control viruses on their computers. > > Now for my POV > The one percent are basically causing the hardliners to spam > the rest of us. Because most of the virus mail you receive is > spoofed, leaving on the warning send back is the same as > spamming. Basically you will be accusing someone of having a > virus that they do not have, generating bad will between your > company and the one you just spammed. I am speaking from > person experience. One company late last week, sent us 5 > e-mails indicating that we were infected with the active > virus at that time. We were not infected, but because we are > good admins, we sat down and verified that we were not > infected, wasting our time. We knew the virus lied about the > FROM address, but we checked anyway just to be safe. We then > called the offending party(The company that spammed us). They > told us we were infected and we deserved to get the message. > Needless to say, we informed them what the virus does, and > they said they could do nothing about the messages as they > wanted to stop others from spreading infection. BTW, did I > mention that their e-mail said that we wasted their time > because we did not have a e-mail scanner on our systems? > Needless to say, I will probably never do business with that > ISP. They proved that they did not care about corporate > relations, proper etiquette or virus control in general. > > The other problem with this is that the hardliners are > propagating a 99% false positive system. If my AV system was > that bad, I would get a new one. Heck my spam system does > better that 3% false positive. What is worse is that the > false positives are going to people who did not 'sign up' in > the first place.(Hence the spam title) > > Basically, to me, this comes down to a matter of fairness. If > the hardliners believe it is ok to call 100 people 'jerks' > just because one of them has a foul mouth, go right ahead, > but they will find it hard to make friends. If on the other > hand, they instead pay attention to what your receiving and > respond only where you have proof of 'jerkiness', they will > have no problem making friends and they will make the > community much happier. (No one likes a jerk) > > Michael > --------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:54 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Yea but what about that 1% that has no clue their sending out > viruses? <SNIP> > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=& lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
