[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
You seem to be missing the point here. Nowhere that i saw did anyone
say that they are scanning the mailboxes INSTEAD of at smtp time.
This mailbox scanning is in addition to smtp scanning. I think anyone
could agree that additional scanning is beneficial (although not
always necessary). Thefore, i dont see the point of your argument.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
A quote from a previous email(not from me):
It would be theoretically possible to do all the above on line, but the
chances of dying from a DOS attack would be very high. So off-line
scanning for malware and spam seems to me to be the best way to go
unless you have unlimited horsepower.
To me this implies that they want offline scanning instead. I could be
wrong
in the interpretation. It is just my counterpoint that this is not always
the case.
Perhaps, but i read it differently.
But anyway, why would you want to perform additional virus scanning of
mailboxes if it is all scanned upon arrival anyway? The only reason
I could think is if virus definitions were updated after some malware
had already been accepted and you want to go back and look for it.
Exactly. And to me, this is a very good reason to do so. Many people
also scan incoming messages (during smtp) with multiple virus scanners.
Do you also ask the question, "Why scan the same message twice with 2
virus scanners?" The same principal applies here - redundant scanning
is a good idea.
I don't see this happening in large environments though.
Actually, i would expect this more in large environments. The more
email a particular site receives, the greater the chance of missed
viruses. Its simply a matter of volume.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
