Many AV companies don't make the name clear in their bounces. But that's not the point. The point is that big corporate customers *complain* if the CTO feels he can't do something about 'that virus problem'. In general, the option to send these messages is customer-configurable - blame the admin running the service, not the product itself.
No, the software should not even have an option to send this crap which can't *possibly* be going to the right person. I blame both the idiot admin and the idiot vendor who makes it possible for the idiot admin to bother me. Sure, send them if you know that the alleged sender really *is* the sender, I don't have a problem with that. In fact, it might even be useful. But don't bloody well spam me when you know that I didn't send it.
I appreciate that to some people the concept of business is a strange one - note the /. readers calling SCO stupid (while the SCO executives make a lot of money, and said readers remain second-rate programmers earning a pittance) - if there's little demand for a feature in a product, then the company would be stupid to develop it.
So, what's it like apologising for spammers? Do you feel dirty?
What you are saying is equivalent to "if there's money to be made from spamming, there's nothing wrong with doing it.".
-- David Cantrell | Reprobate | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david
Obviously, Linux owes its heritage to UNIX but not its code.
We would not, nor will not, make such a claim
-- Darl McBride, CEO, SCO, 28 Aug 2002
talking to Jeff Gerhardt of Linux Journal