> >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.
Once the AV is launched, throwing some additional JPGs, TXT, etc... at the scanner does not worry me. Build what you want, use it hwo you wish.
You're correct that the majority of the CPU time is the AV program loading information (so scanning 2 files doesn't take nearly twice as long as scanning just one). But what about an E-mail that only needs to be scanned because of those .JPG or .TXT files? If someone sends a plain text E-mail with a .TXT attachment, you don't have to even start the virus scanner.
One of the reasons why Declude Virus Pro is so fast is because it pre-scans HTML files, so that many E-mails that would otherwise need to be scanned don't require starting the virus scanner.
> >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.
For an additional, hefty fee :)
No, no fee required. <G>
The Lite version doesn't have that option, but that doesn't cause any problems here (the .JPG files will still be scanned, even if someone has a very old version of Declude Virus and doesn't want to purchase a Service Agreement).
> 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.
Still goes without saying. It's not my place to tell admins to apply windows service pack, hotfixes, av updates, etc... An admin a big boy/girl, certainly capable of making decisions. We do make some recommendation but do not approach any of them from a 'this is gospel' position.
That's one of the big differences between you and me, I guess.
I feel that it is our job to let admins know about any updates/hotfixes/whatever that are required in order for the software that they purchased from us to do its job properly. While most admins understand that virus definitions need to be updated, in my experience most do not realize that the AV .exe's need to be updated as well.
While it really should be up to the AV company to make sure their customers know this, we like to act as a liason between the customer and the AV companies (such as having our customers come to us if they have AV questions, even if they might think that they should go directly to the AV company). This also helps lower our support costs -- if people know that they need the latest .exe for their virus scanner, and they get it, they won't come to us asking why viruses are getting through.
Oh, ok. Just reporting what was reported. Right. No need to verify. Sounds like the CBS document issue. If inaccurate/misleading info is acceptable to your company - so be it.
But I'm talking to the original source, and although the source is saying that the results are inaccurate, the source isn't say *how* they are inaccurate. We can't make any changes without information on what to change. Feel free to E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a description of what is inaccurate and why.
> 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).
Though still incorrect, I should feel better about it?
I can see why you don't like the results, but you still haven't pointed out what is inaccurate about them.
-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/
