Hello Philip, On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:58:33 +0000 GMT (21/03/03, 09:58 +0700 GMT), Philip Storry wrote:
> A scan-on-send is only useful it you forward a message that wasn't > scanned on receiving - as it's likely any temporary files will already > be MIME/UUEncoded and therefore not scanned by your on-access scanner. But don't modern scanners also scan those files? HOw else would PCC have been able to stop my mail download when a virus-infected attachment is stored to temp? > Therefore, I believe that "scan before sending" is, at the end of > the day, a waste of time. Of course, you can choose to continue this > practice - but if you send me a mail I won't care if it was scanned > before sending. I'm only going to trust it when my antivirus package > pronounces it clean. And not before. ACK. But then, I accept some people's reasoning that it makes them feel better to know that they haven't sent a virus to anybody. The statement "This mail is certified to be virus free" has no value, though. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. ROBOTRON: Unsere Mikroelektronik ist die Groesste! Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 2222 A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
