On Jan 9, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On January 9, 2006 11:06 am, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
just reject viruses at the front door, and you'll be fine.
'client-side' scanning (squirrelmail IS a client, even though it's
run
on a server) is not a 'feature'. Don't think you should do it
that way
just because thunderbird does it. The only reason thunderbird or
kmail
have client-side virus scanning support is because some providers
don't
do their own scanning.
Re-read your last sentence, then compare how Thunderbird accesses
messages
from a POP server compared to how SquirrelMail accesses messages
from a
POP server using the built-in Mail Fetch plugin (that completely
by-passes any and all mail servers at the site using SquirrelMail).
There is no functional difference, so why should one client be
allowed to
scan messages while another isn't?
While it's not the most optimal setup, having the option to scan
messages
in the mail client should not be frowned upon. If your mail provider
does not scan your incoming messages, then the mail client is a good
place to scan messages. After-all, it's the only place *you*, the
recipient, fully control access to the e-mail message.
I guess the point here (and I agree with it) is the concept of
defense in depth. Even if my server is scanning, why shouldn't my
client go ahead and scan? just think how hard viruses would have to
work if EVERY process that touched the email scanned it for viruses,
or other assorted malware (as deemed appropriate by the controlling
admin)? You are right...you shouldn't HAVE to scan at the
client...but then again, you shouldn't HAVE to run an os that allows
the behaviors in which viruses engage... oh, wait, there's only one
that does....
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
