> >mxGuard for IMail scans *all* file types by design. > > Really? That's a lot of extra CPU time. :)
CPU time is cheap.
It is? Ask that to people who have to upgrade their server because of the CPU time involved in AV scanning. :) Virus scanning is usually the most CPU intensive task on the server by far. If you are dealing with less than 50,000-100,000 E-mails/day, it's probably not going to be an issue. But for people dealing with 100,000+ E-mails/day (or who have old servers), it becomes an issue.
It's better safer than sorry and it beats having to purchase a service agreement to get the latest fix when a virus is delivered in a formerly 'excluded' filetype :)
<G> Even people who purchased Declude Virus years ago and aren't covered by a Service Agreement don't have to worry. While they won't have the protection of Declude Virus detecting these exploits, just so long as their AV product can detect them, they will get blocked. Declude Virus lets you choose if you want certain extensions excluded.
> You might want to urge your customers to upgrade their AV scanner .exe
This goes without mention.
That's a problem -- it MUST BE MENTIONED, EVERYWHERE. This is a very, very serious issue. This could be much bigger than Netsky/Bagle back in March.
Remember, there is a HUGE difference between upgrading the AV *program* and updating the AV *virus definitions*. Normally, the virus definitions are upgraded automatically, but the .exe file isn't. On rare occasions, the .exe file *must* be upgraded for some reason -- this is one of them.
> file, as that is required by many AV programs in order to detect the > GDIPlus.dll exploit (unless you have built-in protection for it, like > Declude Virus does).
Detecting viruses is the job of the virus scanner - they seem to do an excellent job at it.
I agree. But unless you take the steps to upgrade the AV scanner, it almost certainly isn't going to detect these exploits.
btw - your site displays some AV test results for mxGuard that are not accurate. You should remove or correct them immediately.
I believe those results are accurate, although I'll admit it isn't as clear as it should be (it is reporting the best results that were reported for any given scanner). FWIW, since only one person reported for mxGuard, the results for mxGuard are both accurate and not unclear (the only issues I can see would be if their setup was not configured properly, or if changes have been made since the information was gathered).
While you do have a disclaimer that these are not 'your' results, but those gleaned from a mailing list, they are innacurate and irresponsible to post. One should verify - especially when the data is used for marketing purposes.
Unfortunately, marketing people see the world differently than us tech guys. Believe it or not, that information is actually more in the favor of the competitors than it originally was (I pointed out a definite mistake with the original version).
Please note that the information is, as you pointed out, based on the results from third parties. The "Average missed per program" for Declude Virus would be better if someone hadn't posted results from a misconfigured version of Declude Virus. So if we were to change your results to what they should be, we would need to change ours, too.
-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/
