> > Virus scanning should be done on the client machine
>...Because there are generally a lot more free cycles on the end user
machine
>than on the mail server.
True, but not necessarily relevant. If my server doesn't have enough free
cycles to cope with virus scanning, I just buy a faster server or use two
servers. Virus scanning belongs on the server and the client, but to me it
makes more sense to put most of my effort into protecting the central
places, like servers, because these are the places where viruses will move
from machine to machine. I still protect my clients, but I work harder at
protecting my servers.
>Not all messages that go through the main servers
>will normally need to be checked.
I agree. We should only check those messages that contain viruses. That
would save a lot of time. ;-)
>Some users may not want to bother having
>virus scans done at all since they won't be running any programs sent to
them
>(including active documents).
Yes, I agree again. ;-) All our users/customers are virus experts and never
do anything which could cause them to become infected and never make any
mistakes or have any accidents. When they tell me they will never run any
programs sent to them, I know I can sleep happy... The fact that we have
intercepted viruses from an IT director of a major IT company, and also from
a major Antivirus vendor must be just bad luck on our part. Perhaps we have
the wrong set of customers, somehow not mirroring the real world.
> Viruses are being increasingly sent as encrypted msgs
>>...people will start getting more encrypted email.
Does anyone have any hard data on the increase in encrypted mail traffic?
I'm very interested in this.
>>...virus writers can be
>>expected to start using encryption to make detecting viruses with pattern
>>matching more difficult.
Has anyone seen this yet? Again, I'm very interested in any real examples.
>>..checking for viruses is going to
>>be more resource intensive
(lets hope increases in processor speeds keeps up!)
>>and that in the long run other approaches should
>>be used.
Like not checking for viruses? (sorry, couldn't resist that one)
Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alex Shipp
Imagineer
St@r Internet
E - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T - 01285 884496
F - 01285 887013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
________________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Star Screening System
http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm
