| |||||||||||
On the value of virus notificationsOn the value of virus notificationsPosted Aug 21, 2003 7:12 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: On the value of virus notifications by zmi Parent article: On the value of virus notifications
The REAL problem is that it is still possible for any virus/worm/software to actually forge the sender.Agreed. But it's not like "the real problem" going to be fixed soon. There is one realistic proposal though, it's called Reverse MX. You need "your mail was filtered" messages because it could be that because of a false positive a correct e-mail was filtered, and then you should know that it was thrown into /dev/null.I disagree. In case of viruses, the only "false positive" would be a delibrate attempt to infect the recipient, provided, of course, that the virus signature is long enough and is matched exactly.
(Log in to post comments)
On the value of virus notifications Posted Aug 21, 2003 8:26 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] however even virus definitions are not that good. it's relativly common for files to match up with virus definitions.you still have the false-positive problem
|
|||||||||||