The only tests that "fail" (and I use that term loosley in the context of this sentence) from the www.testvirus.org website are two so-called vulnerabilities:
Test #24 (non-virus): Test for the "Partial (Fragmented) Vulnerability"....
Test #25 (non-virus): Attachment with a CLSID extension which may hide the real file extension....
While both are easy to detect, I simply do not agree with the claim that they are vulnerabilities. There are legit purposes for both.
I agree with you that #25 isn't very important for a mailserver AV program to detect. It's good if it does, but isn't very important, as the actual AV program will detect a virus if there is one present (assuming that the virus definitions are up-to-date). So it only protects you for a short period of time while virus definitions are being updated, as well as possibly protecting you against non-viruses (other malicious programs that aren't caught by an AV scanner). That goes beyond what a mailserver AV program is generally expected to do.
#24, however, is a different story. Unless you detect that vulnerability *or* have a method in place of holding the E-mails and scanning them later, viruses can slip through undetected. So I find this is a "must" in a mailserver virus scanner. Any mailserver AV vulnerability is a "must" in my opinion, as it will allow viruses through undetected, even if the AV program itself is fully up-to-date.
I don't see what is so difficult about my original post. I said the info on your site related to mxguard was incorrect/misleading and that you should remove it or fix it. You obviousely knew what I was talking about since you replied with "I can see why you don't like it".
If you know you are misleading people with bogus 'test cases/results' and fail to see why I wouldn't like them, I don't know what to tell you.
Integrity and honesty goes along way. One should take steps to preserve it.
I said "I can see why you don't like it" because your numbers aren't close to those of Declude Virus, not because I thought there was any bogus information. I assumed that either the customer that had posted the information was misconfigured, or you had since changed mxGuard to detect some of those vulnerabilities.
It's marketing. Professional marketers like to push things to the limits. Although the way the data is presented definitely is in favor of Declude Virus, the data is accurate. It's kind of like "lying through statistics" -- if you sell a widget for $10 and your competitor sells the widget for $11, you can make it look like theirs is twice the price by having a chart that starts at $9 and goes to $11. Yes, it's annoying, but everybody does it. The only thing that I would change, however, is that I would either show all the results from all people reporting, or change "Tests reported Failed" to "Best case reported". The only thing I really don't like about it is that it shows the results for Declude Virus as 0.6, but makes it look like it didn't fail any tests.
If there was inaccurate information, I would see to it that it gets fixed. But I do not see any inaccurate information there.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000.
Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection.
Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation.
--- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
