[87160] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Todd Vierling)
Wed Dec 7 15:00:37 2005
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:59:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org>
To: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>,
"Church, Chuck" <cchurch@netcogov.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <96820009-6426-411D-A590-71A13FF5B82F@mail-abuse.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Douglas Otis wrote:
> > Not my problem. I don't need or want, and should not be hammered with,
> > virus "warnings" sent to forged addresses -- ever. They are unsolicited (I
> > didn't request it, and definitely don't want it), bulk (automated upon
> > receipt of viruses by the offending server), e-mail... thus UBE.
>
> I know of no cases where a malware related DSN would be generated by our
> products,
That's good. Unfortunately it is not the case for most commercial
anti-malware products.
> nevertheless, DSNs are not Unsolicited Bulk Email.
I don't see how this is relevant to my paragraph above. I was not equating
DSNs to UBE -- I specifically mentioned virus "warnings". Whether those
warnings are look like DSNs, smell like DSNs, or taste like DSNs is wholly
irrelevant; they are still UBE if sent to forged virus sender addresses.
--
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
