Thomas Cameron wrote: > Howdy - > > I recently responded to a thread on a local LUG mailing list where a guy > wanted to report a virus as spam. I have always thought that using a > spam tool to fight viruses was wrong, and I said so. He asked why, and > basically my response was "use the right tool for the job," as in use a > virus tool for viruses, and use a spam tool for spam. > > What is the "conventional wisdom" on this list? Should viruses be > reported as spam? If so, why? If not, why not? > > Thanks! > Thomas >
Thomas, here's my 2 cents worth. It seems like you have two seperate scenarios you're talking about here. actual virus protection and seperate, reporting. I personally think it's important (also) to use the right tools for the right job, therefor I use both anti-virus software *AND* anti-spam software. It's also important to understand what these products do and what their individual limitations are and how to get them to compliment each other in your installation. with regards to reporting a virus as spam, If the virus is sending an email that is spammy, I think it doesn't hurt to records and report those emails as spam. It will help to train your bayesian database and also help community services (i.e. DCC, Spamcop, Razor, etc) to provide information about the characteristics of that mail. HOWEVER; reporting the virus signature is a different story. I don't think the actual virus signature should be reported as spam. lastly, there's the general logic of "do you want one product that does a whole bunch of things but in a mediocre way? or do you want a bunch of products that do one thing really really well?" alan
