While having SMTP virus scanning *might* be a good idea (regardless
of which machine it's on) there is the issue that as a mail
provider we could not advertise to our users that it absolutely
protects them. Otherwise, we could be liable for the damage
caused by the one that got away. So if you cannot absolutely
protect users, and telling them that you have something in place
that will protect them *most* of the time causes them let down
their guard and not have virus protection at the client level,
aren't we left with implementing a service we can't advertise we
have? (Even if we tell them they must have virus protection,
they'll still be upset with us that our virus protection did not
protect them -- IF we tell them we have it.)
best, paul
At 05:11 PM 9/6/00 +0100, you wrote:
> > exactly. I've heard too many stories like this to even considering
> > NOT having SMTP virus scanning on its own machine, before even
> > factoring in how expensive virus scanning is in machine resources.
========================================================================
This list server is Powered by iMS
'The Swiss Army Knife of Mail Servers'
--------------------------------------
To leave this list please complete the form at
http://www.CoolFusion.com/iMS.htm
List archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/infusion-email%40eoscape.com/
========================================================================
