This is my opinion, and like many things, everyone has one.
I'd like to suggest a subtly different approach/guideline:
Any time new functionality is added, leave the new
functionality disabled by default.
I believe, in this case, that means the PhishingScanURLs option
would have
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Even timid users need to edit the file as a minimum to disable the
> "Example" line. Once there I'm certain they can then change the other
> critical areas that require attention.
>From my point of view, without the phishing code, you can pretty safely
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> I think it's a non-issue. Even timid users need to edit the file as
> a minimum to disable the "Example" line. Once there I'm certain they
> can then change the other critical areas that require attention.
Well, OK. Let me throw down the gauntlet: I think the entire
Phis
Gerard Seibert wrote:
> On Monday November 12, 2007 at 04:22:47 (PM) David F. Skoll wrote:
>
>> Really? All posters on this thread who gave an opinion wanted
>> PhishingScanURLs off by default. I invite users who want
>> PhishingScanURLs to be on by default to come forward; I'll happily go
>> wi
David F. Skoll wrote:
>
> Really? All posters on this thread who gave an opinion wanted
> PhishingScanURLs off by default. I invite users who want
> PhishingScanURLs to be on by default to come forward; I'll happily go
> with the majority decision.
If I have to choose between "on vs off", then
On Monday November 12, 2007 at 04:22:47 (PM) David F. Skoll wrote:
> Really? All posters on this thread who gave an opinion wanted
> PhishingScanURLs off by default. I invite users who want
> PhishingScanURLs to be on by default to come forward; I'll happily go
> with the majority decision.
Cou
Gerard Seibert wrote:
> On Monday November 12, 2007 at 01:29:41 (PM) David F. Skoll wrote:
>
>> A request: When replying to an e-mail, please change the subject if it
>> no longer reflects the thread topic. I've been eagerly awaiting word
>> on my complaings about PhishingScanURLs from Clam devel
Gerard Seibert wrote:
> The solution is simple. All you need do is properly post/advertise that you do
> not support user installed software; i.e., software not supplied by you. Many
> web providers do that presently. You might also strategically place a FAQ
> dealing with ClamAV and it's configur
On Monday November 12, 2007 at 02:48:51 (PM) David F. Skoll wrote:
[ ... ]
> It's not so difficult, but it leads to support calls (we have a large
> number of clients who are not particularly Linux-savvy and who
> hesitate to edit configuration files.) We've configured our packages
> to turn off
Gerard Seibert wrote:
> That is not going to do a lot of good. The message will still be
> threaded with all the other messages in that discussion. A new
> message should be constructed to start a new discussion when the
> subject changes.
True, but that's too much to ask. :-) And having an accu
On Monday November 12, 2007 at 01:29:41 (PM) David F. Skoll wrote:
> A request: When replying to an e-mail, please change the subject if it
> no longer reflects the thread topic. I've been eagerly awaiting word
> on my complaings about PhishingScanURLs from Clam developers and the
> misleading su
Hi,
A request: When replying to an e-mail, please change the subject if it
no longer reflects the thread topic. I've been eagerly awaiting word
on my complaings about PhishingScanURLs from Clam developers and the
misleading subjects are giving me false hope that this problem will
actually be addr
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Also, OpenOffice on Linux is normally run from a non-privileged user ID,
> heavily limiting the ability of any malicious macro to harm or propagate.
Huh? What difference does running as a non-privileged user make when
the method of infection is to spread via *documents*?
Le Mon 12/11/2007, Tilman Schmidt disait
> John Rudd schrieb:
> > Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> (Remember the viruses ClamAV checks for
> >> are *Windows* viruses. A unixoid OS doesn't run ClamAV for its own
> >> protection but for the protection of Windows clients.)
> >
> > OpenOffice isn't vul
John Rudd schrieb:
> Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>
>> (Remember the viruses ClamAV checks for
>> are *Windows* viruses. A unixoid OS doesn't run ClamAV for its own
>> protection but for the protection of Windows clients.)
>
> OpenOffice isn't vulnerable to Office Macro viruses?
AFAIK, no. Kaspersky ha
15 matches
Mail list logo