| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
On the value of virus notificationsOn the value of virus notificationsPosted Aug 21, 2003 4:42 UTC (Thu) by piman (subscriber, #8957)Parent article: On the value of virus notifications Several people I've talked to, and myself, have the suspicion that the antivirus rejection letters are still sent because they form seemingly-innocuous spam for the company's product. Free software users generally know better than to fall for such things, but if an ordinary Windows user gets an email "Your mail contained a virus; it was automatically removed by WhizBang AntiVirus 2003", they're going to a) remember that name, and b) consider them immensely useful ("they removed a virus I didn't even know I had!") and nice ("they even told me about it"). There are also, of course, the conspiracy theories that say the antivirus software makers are in bed with the virus makers.
(Log in to post comments)
On the value of virus notifications Posted Aug 21, 2003 14:06 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] Well, there is a business case for fixing AV software.One of the sources modern mail worms use to pick the sender and recipient is the infected user's address book. This means that there is a non-trivial chance that if you receive a copy of the mail worm, you will have a "friend of a friend" relationship with the forged sender. They might even be one of your clients. If you have a choice between a well behaved piece of AV software and one that wrongly accuses your clients of spreading mail worms, which one are you going to pick?
|
|
||||||||||||