On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:00:51 +0000
lists <li...@retrochoons.co.uk> articulated:
> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:38 -0500, Jerry wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:33:09 -0500
> > Kris Deugau <kdeu...@vianet.ca> articulated:
> >
> > > Steven Stern wrote:
> > > > Checking outgoing mail is pointless. Why bother?
> > >
> > > So you can reduce malware propagation? (And as a result, maybe
> > > not end up on everyone's local blacklist for spewing garbage...)
> >
> > It is still pointless and a waste of processing power.
> My ISP don't think it's pointless or a waste of processing power - but
> hey, I guess some people have standards and modern machines capable of
> dealing with the load ;-)
If your ISP is so concerned, then why aren't they filtering (censoring)
your e-mail traffic? Maybe they don't have modern machines capable of
dealing with the load.
> The idea is really simple - it's not to insert a header to say
> 'clean', it's simply to stop retarded, clueless users sending or
> forwarding malware unwittingly - malware that often gets executed as
> the recipient 'knows and trusts' the sender.
New malware is being created and transmitted on a daily basis. Until a
signature/definition file is created for it, it may very well go
undetected and thereby bypass normal detection schemes. You were aware
of that weren't you? The simple act of scanning a document does not
guarantee that the document is 100% safe.
In any case, a "retarded, clueless" (OP's words, not mine) user would
not in all probability be using a suitable AV/SPAM software solution
anyway. Conversely, an intelligent user would not be transmitting
socially undesirable material to begin with.
You are aware of the acronym "PEBKAC" I assume. Well, if you are the
sort of end user who simply executes any arbitrary file sent to him
then you certainly fit the description of that acronym.
> Given the potential inconvenience and financial loss malware can
> bring, it's anything other than pointless - but thank you for your
> valuable opinion. I'll print it off and file it in the toilet for
> later study.
Again, you use the word "potential" as if it were an absolute. It
obviously is not. Furthermore, since SPAMMers, or transmitters of other
types of socially unacceptable e-mail would not be scanning their
transmissions, the final recipient of the transmission is still going
to have to certify each and every document they receive. Since the
transmission is (or should) be scanned upon reception, pre-scanning
(transmission) is redundant and pointless.
Now, if you want to waste your time doing it on your machine(s), be my
guest. Personally, I could not care less.
In any case, I believe that this discussion will only lead to the
opening of the floodgates of logomachy in this arena, which in itself
would be pointless.
For future reference, I have filed your reply under "T" for 'troll'.
--
Jerry
ges...@yahoo.com
|::::=======
|::::=======
|===========
|===========
|
This ae nighte, this ae nighte,
Everye nighte and alle,
Fire and sleet and candlelyte,
And Christe receive thy saule.
The Lykewake Dirge
_______________________________________________
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
