[60943] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: To send or not to send 'virus in email' notifications?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Aug 20 10:57:50 2003
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:25:28 EDT."
<3F4384D8.7060400@ttec.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:54:59 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_5394662P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:25:28 EDT, Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com> said:
> Considering the amount of email traffic generated by responding to
> forged virus laden email from culprits like sobig should email virus
> scanning systems be configured to send notifications back to sender or not?
It isn't like the A/V vendors can't put a single bit in the description that says
"uses real address" or "uses forged address" and only send a notification when
the "real" bit is set. However, a lot of them seem to be more interested in
pumping out PR and FUD.
Worst part is if one of them had been smart, they'd have invented such a bit,
patented it, and then shipped "New! Improved! Now with less confusing
messages", and used the patent to make sure nobody else did. Now *that* would
be a selling point for their product, but noooo... ;) They've missed their
chance. Feel free to cite this e-mail as prior art if somebody tries it now...
;)
--==_Exmh_5394662P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE/Q4vCcC3lWbTT17ARAjLCAJsEFTftsdy8yoHZ8yjHO4WFbAXJXACfdn6E
/PSq+i14zWbOmeRjLxYzkVA=
=F7SO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_5394662P--
