Ray_Net wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 08/12/2012 00:10:
Jim Taylor wrote:
On the corporate side, where end users have no choice about their
antivirus product, I don't know if Symantec's corporate products
detect the false positive or not. But even if they do I doubt that
many large companies are using SeaMonkey as their standard browser
and the individual users that may be running it are probably
knowledgeable enough to deal with it, particularly if they are told
about it in the release notes and known problems.
The key for most users would be to have the information /before/
installing, not after (do you read those things before or after? most
people I know read them afterward). But it would have to be carefully
worded so new arrivals wouldn't get the mistaken impression that it's
/our/ problem and avoid SeaMonkey.
Reading that:
With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad.
We conclude that because "the release cadence SM have" ..., SM is the
culprit.
Not sure what that has to do with anything I said...
At any rate, a false positive from an AV vendor is obviously the AV
vendor's fault, no matter how often SM releases its updates. Just
because they've never seen the file before, that doesn't make it a virus.
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
