On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 04:05:45PM +0000, Uwe Ohse wrote:
> Felix is right.
> As this mailing list (or, to name another popular example, the
> openssl mailing list) proved a number of times the damage to me
> done by bad antivirus systems is quite large. They costed band-
> width (i pay for it), hard disk space and _time_. They costed
> the time needed to answer legitimate requests ...
> And _no_ damage was done by any virus, until now.
Yes, but that's from *bad*, or misconfigured, antivirus systems.
By the same analogy, if a number of people misconfigured their Linux/BSD/Sun/whatever
you wouldnt say it was the systems themselves that are bad, would you?
No, because it was the *admins* that screwed up, not the systems.
> I just want protection from stupid idiots and people wasting my
> time. People running virus scanners which are not absolutely
> invisible to the outside _are_ vasting my time. And people
> who have virus problem _today_ are idiots. Everybody with the
> smallest possible amount of brain could have understood, by now
> (it's 2001!), that they are supposed to sue the makers of
> bad software.
People are idiots, haven't you noticed?
> Kill outlook. It's garbage - as proven by it's history of security
> problems. You want security? Ask them to use mutt.
As nice an idea that is, it is not practical. You want to tell your computer
illiterate boss to use text-mode mutt? Congrats, have a nice day.
Maybe in the long run we can get people to not use crap products but for now it is not
realistic to expect people to not use outlook et al.
People, sadly enough, care more about how easy a program is for them to use than how
secure it is.
> Aha. That's your excuse for using something 100% away from perfection.
> I see.
Perfection is unattainable.
Lars Hansson
