-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 'Lo Allie,
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:38:28 -0500 your time, you authored this: ACM> Since you posted your findings to this list, I thought your p <snip> ACM> I've always replied with TB! as my ... Yeah, if you really say so Allie. :-/ What I've posted I stand by, and is in context, given the nature of our previous communications. If you need to try and score points by suggesting that I am solely responsible for taking the discussion slightly off topic then enjoy yourself :) ACM> I don't know how many of the readers here realize that as TB! users, ACM> the results of those tests you did don't really matter, and that ACM> checking weeding out dangerous file-types isn't really scanning for ACM> viruses Couldn't disagree with you more with *your opinion*, and I must say it seems a rather narrow and irresponsible position for you to take as well. Of course such tests are valid, and they would be relevant outside of the context of TB! as well. There are users like me that would be more than happy to know that the AV scanner software that they are using is able to offer all levels of protection, regardless of whether TB! has similar safeguards implemented, albeit in another way - that is in context to The Bat! by the way before you suggest that it isn't. I am much happier for my AV software to quarantine possible exploits before they hit the TB! inbox and that will save having to deal with any possible threats on a per email basis, and I suspect that many other users would feel the same way. I don't think the future is having to go through a paranoid per email sniff to check whether each email is safe or not, but rather transparency, so that receiving and opening email doesn't become a chore of a 101 decisions. Of course the advantages of using TB! are many, and having such protection against possible exploits built in is a great concept, but it in know way replaces the use of a good scanner, or a scanner that is able to detect exploits as well as virii. I think what you say about scanners not being scanners if they 'weed' out the occasional exploit is pseudo-literalistic nonsense. ACM> a TB! user, it's not really valid to choose to use Kapersky over AVG ACM> because of how one performs with these tests as opposed to the other. You mistake your role Allie. This type of decision doesn't call for a judgment by you. In your opinion it may not be valid, because you do things they way you do them, so the logic in your context is out of place, but but of course if users prefer to have AV software handle exploits in the manner that Kapersky does then it is completely valid to choose Kapersky over AVG on that basis. There is no definitive reasoning here, just personal preference based on users preferred methods of email management. S> Yeah, but we are talking real world not ideals. ACM> I thought we were on-topic, i.e., talking about A-V software in the ACM> context of TB! and making decisions on which to use... Well I was as much on topic as you were, but I'll refresh your memory if you like: ACM> Warnings should be issued by your e-mail client. Of course, Outlook is ACM> a different beast and it would seem that it does need something to ACM> prevent these filetypes being downloaded to it at all. But which ACM> application is lacking here? Is it the A-V Software or is it Outlook? You seem to be talking about AV software in context to Outlook, not TB! See, you aint no puritan either ;) S> I think the point is one of familiarity. ...Generally speaking, even the S> most basic of user gets to grips with the dangers of running .com and S> .exe files, ....so understand them as being executable files ACM> Are you sure about this? :) Well I was sure enough to write it Allie, so what do you think? In my experience, and that experience extends to directly dealing with people using PCs in their homes, from Win 3.11 onwards, users do understand, and quicker when taught of course. My experiences may not match yours, or others, but in my context, yes, people understand. In the phone tech support support realm, where large numbers of users are begging for help, my experiences may seem to conflict, but dealing with people on a one to one basis in their homes has furnished me with these experiences, and that is what I based my comment on. Of course I have absolutely no need to justify this, but as you asked...! S> Again, in and ideal world that would be fine. But it aint, and S> users don't and won't do as they should always, and I don't S> think they deserve to get infected because of it. Some people S> might call those types lamers or whatever - a term I hate - S> but it's not their fault that there is a war against Microsoft S> going on and they happened to get caught up in the middle of it. ACM> <snip> But what has it got to do with TB! which is what this initial ACM> discussion was about <snip> to quote you, so you remember the context ;) : ACM> I'd say that they have missed the point that it's the user that has to ACM> be very careful about any of these files. <snip> Of course the user ACM> expecting the file shouts an angry foul ..... JFYI of course. S> I think that the more optional idiot-proof protections there are S> in place the better. It means that all levels of user are S> afforded protection, not just those with plenty of air miles S> behind them. ACM> Sure. I agree. This is why TB! is designed the way it is and I agree ACM> with that design. So why argue at all then? If you agree with me, that the more idiot-proof safeguards there are the better, then why knock the scanner software for employing the same extra protections? The scanner is most commonly, apart from common sense, the first line of defence, not your email client. Kudos to TB! authors for implementing the protection, but TB! is second in the line, not first. With your reasoning every application that could be exploited would have to build in the same protections as and when exploits were found. But that's what scanners operating as a system-wide shield are for isn't it? Whatever, I like Kapersky as it shows that it concerns itself with exploits as well as the job of scanning for virii, soemthing that not all other scanner softwares offer. The fact that it offers first line defence for The Bat!, "weeding" out exploits as well as detecting virii is a bonus for me, not something to disparage simply because TB! has some degree of protection built in. As you agree already, the more prophylactics in place the merrier. I prefer it that way. If something gets through Kapersky's shield I am glad to know that The Bat! seems capable of dealing with it. - -- Slán, Simon @ theycallmesimon.co.uk _______________________________________ Faffing about with TB! v1.61 on W2K SP3 PGP Key: http://pgp.netbanger.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Privacy is freedom. Protect your privacy with PGP! Comment: KeyID: 0x5C7E8966 Comment: Fingerprint: 851C F927 0296 FF1C 70A2 474F CB6E 6FFE 5C7E 8966 iQA/AwUBPb0p9Mtub/5cfolmEQJxNQCgrFdpybDYwZDmUu7kRdvZEI10iUcAn1l4 AGtIGOnuWPnBs3SjLyFn5QNu =6l8Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
