Thus spake Jurian van der Knaap ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >Dumb users need training, not an antivirus.
> Of course they need training, but thats still NO reason not to use
> antivirus software, again, a dumb anology: you say not to wear a
> bulletproof vest cause the people with the guns need to be trained not to
> shoot you.
That analogy is _very_ dumb indeed.
I was not talking about the evil hax0r sending you the virus, but about
the _victim_ of the virus in your organisation. If you can train people
not to get hit if a sniper shoots them, fine, do it! It's much better
than a bulletproof vest. That would be the analogy.
> >Or, even more drastic, make spreading viruses a reason for immediate
> >termination of their job.
> Sure, meet the first sysadmin who is also the boss, all you can do is
> recommend that to the suits, they decide, not you, even tho I agree with
> you on this one, dumb users who click every icon cause 'it looks funny'
> should pay for their stupidity.
I have convinced two of my previous clients to do it like this. Once
the boss understood the issue (if he paid me to explain it to him, he
will listen and try to understand), it's really no big step.
If you think the world is conspiring against you and you are powerless
to do anything, then choose another job. The whole problem comes from
ignorant people who just accept that computers crash all the time and
viruses are a fact of life that you can't do anything against.
> > > Without antivirus protection on the workstations our desktop support
> > > people would be running around all day removing viruses.
> >What business have your users on the Internet if they have this little
> >knowledge? Maybe you should hire a babysitting service?
> Sure, it would be ideal if all end users knew how to use their computer,
> sadly, most of them do not, and a babysitter isn't going to help, cause
> gee, they don't know how to use computers either.
Wrong babysitter, then.
> >Who cares? I got dozens of copies and none of them caused any damage.
> >It's the job of the administrator to make sure the working environment
> >is immune to outside damage, and to the extent possible to inside damage
> >as well.
> Exactly, its the job of the admin to make sure the working env. is secure,
> but it also has to remain workable, some people need to receive things by
> email and use them, of course they should receive extra training, but why
> not do everyone a favor and stop the virus from entering your user network
> in the first place?
Because that is not possible if the environment has to remain workable.
> Does anyone enjoy deleting loads of emails all the time, just cause
> the admin was too lazy to install anti virus software on the mail
> server?
I delete loads of emails all the time BECAUSE OF ANTI VIRUS lusers.
Alone on this mailing list, there were twice as many "virus found"
messages than viruses.
> As much as I agree with you that the workstations should be
> secure enough that the virusses simply don't get a chance, I don't see
> why stopping a big part of the threat on the mailserver is a bad
> thing.
Because you don't.
And guess what: when German press interviewed companies who spread
Sircam, they said "who, us? Can't be. We have an antivirus".
> I assume you use antivirus software on the workstations?
No.
> So why not on the mail server?
Because it does not work. I said that before.
> Does it harm anyone to not receive the load of virus emails?
wrong question.
send yourself http://www.fefe.de/antivirus/42.zip
> Does it harm anyone if your mail server bounces
> infected mail right back to the sender, telling them they're infected
> and should clean up their stuff?
Yes. This harmed me in the last two months.
> Really, I don't see the problem,
Your fault.
> >If Sircam could do damage to your users, you did not do your job.
> And why not make your job a bit easier by filtering virusses?
Are you really to dense to understand that
a. sircam was not filtered at all in the beginning
b. when it started getting filtered, the bounce messages caused more
wasted bandwidth and time than the virus itself
Felix
