On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 01:19:53PM +0000, Uwe Ohse wrote:
> Yeah. Obviously.
> Now, where did you misunderstand "bad antivirus systems"? Or
> where in "not absolutely invisible" did i fail to be clear?
I did not misunderstand that at all. You made it sound like since there are some bad
systems all systems are bad.
wich of course might have been exactly what you ment.
> Of course i do. I'd flame even bernstein for the behaviour of
> qmail-smtpd in case someone deleted rcpthosts, if i wasn't too busy
> to write flames.
> If it's _easy_ to misconfigure a system then either the system is
> bad or the admin has choosen the wrong software, although warned
> otherwise.
> I refuse repeat my opinion about the systems you named above in
> this forum today. See the mailing list archives.
Or, the admin could be incompetent, wich no system in the world can compensate for.
Out of curiosity, what systems did I mention earlier today in this forum?
I can only remember mentioning some Unix flavours, wich I did in the mail you just
replied to.
> Excuse me, i'm lost. We are still talking about Outlook and other
> pieces of shit which need a lot of hand-holding to even work
> correctly, right? Since when in an out-of-the-box outlook not
> a security nightmare? Since when do you need to move a finger
> to screw up such an installation?
> Am i so hard to understand?
Are we talking Outlook installations or anti-virus installations? :P
I beleive we are talking about anti-virus scanning. At least that's what started this
thread.
> Of course. Every single message from an antivirus system proved
> that.
> But tell me: why do i have to suffer from bad antivirus systems?
> I mean, i suffer in place of idiots, right?
Yes, you do. and you have to suffer because there are imperfect systems and
incompetent admins.
> I did that. Much to my surprise even my own brother, Windows-User
> since being able to recognize a mouse, was able to handle mutt
> without any help. Which kind of surprised my.
Very surprising indeed.
> May be. But tell me, what's your excuse for using something with is
> exactly perfectly imperfect?
I wouldnt say anti-virus software is perfectly imperfect. Even though it does, of
course, take a little while to get new anti-virus signatures for new viruses they do
detect the older ones just fine. And God, is there ever a lot of old viruses still
around.
Also, not all users are under my control. I can not dictate for people who are sending
email to us what software to use.
Since I can not make them use less imperfect software than Outlook I can , at least,
make sure they dont send viruses to *my* users. It saves a lot of techsupport time not
having to clean newly infected machines all the time.
Cheers
Lars
