Re: Swen and Earthlink
From: Dudley Henriques (dhenriques_at_putearthandlinktogether.com)
Date: 09/25/03
- Next message: Bill Sanderson: "Re: virus protection"
- Previous message: me: "Re: vius"
- In reply to: N. Miller: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Next in thread: Phil Weldon: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Reply: Phil Weldon: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Reply: Ian Hoare: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:55:59 -0400
Might I point out another aspect to this issue if I may. Keep in mind that
I'm anything but an expert on these matters please :-)))
Virus protection and where that is accomplished is only one factor in a
virus problem like Swen. Take my situation as a prime example if you will. I
have a simple dial up with Earthlink for my e-mail. I also have a competent
anti virus program running with all updates installed as they come in daily,
as well as a fully updated XP home edition with all service packs and
updates installed.
My system is clean of the virus. My problem is not related to the virus
infecting my system at all. My problem is directly related to the 500
POTENTIAL virus e-mails that are appearing hourly on Earthlink's mail
server. If it weren't for the Mailwasher program I'm using
(thank God for it!!! :-), every time I went to the server to download my
mail, I would have to sit and wait for every one of the Swen messages to get
down into my inbox before I could have message rules and/or OE deal with
them in any way. Contrary to what others are saying, message rules to delete
from the server are not working for me. The messages are so plentiful and
repetitive, that the server mailbox refills faster than a message rule can
handle them.
The issue for people like myself is directly related to our ISP's dealing
with it by filtering their servers. I can do nothing on my end at all, other
than what I'm already doing by using Mailwasher. I simply check the server
once an hour and delete everything but what I know is ok.
In the final analysis, aside from the obvious "don't open the damn things"
and "Microsoft doesn't send these things out", all people like myself can do
is wait it out and hope our ISP's will deal with the filtering necessary to
clean up their servers.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, please alter my e-mail
address as common sense dictates. :-)
"N. Miller" <koko@soko.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.19dbbae63018c55798974c@msnews.microsoft.com...
> In article <f7acb.4576$ai7.1485@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> pweldon@mindspring.com says...
> > How can SBC Global charge extra to fulfill their implicit contract to
> > provide reliable e-mail service? Seems like a good reason to switch to
an
> > ISP or e-mail service provider that does not charge extra.
> >
> >
> It turns out that I was mis-informed. SBC does not charge extra for viral
> filtering, they simply do not perform viral filtering. Also, the last time
I
> looked at the TOS, there is an explicit "as is" rider to the service. My
> guess is, all ISPs provide their services "as is", which is explicitly
*NOT*
> an implied promise to provide reliable services!
>
> There are two lines of though in this matter. There are experience mail
> system administrators who believe that the burden of maintaining a virus-
> free computer lies with the owners of the computers. There are other
> administrators who believe in taking necessary steps to preserve the
> integrity of their networks. Who is right?
>
> In light of a postal analogy about delivering explosives, and of another
> analogy to Public Health Services, and allowing Typhoid Mary to run free
to
> infect the public, I have changed my tune, somewhat, and decided that the
> "scan all email for viral code" is the proper approach. However, to do
this
> properly requires consideration of the types of accounts which people
have.
>
> Most users have residential services, which are, usually, prohibited by
TOS
> from operating servers. Under these terms, residential accounts should
have
> port 25 redirected to the provider's SMTP services, where outbound
scanning
> should be done. Some kind of threshold of deleted attachments should be in
> place, so the provider can contact the owner of an infected computer and
> tell them to clean up in x hours, or be disconnected from the Internet.
And
> if you, like me, run a mail server from home, well; SBC does have
> authenticating SMTP servers, and I use one as a 'smarthost'. I have no
> problem sending mail from my domain, even though it isn't an SBC domain.
>
> For users with business accounts, pay attention to abuse complaints
> addressing viral infections, and give notice to those users who seem to be
> spewing viral code.
>
> Scanning incoming mail should be a user-selectable option, except where
the
> provider is dealing with a customer who repeatedly gets infected; in that
> case, scanning incoming messages for viruses is permanently done.
>
> --
> Norman
> ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
> ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
> ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
- Next message: Bill Sanderson: "Re: virus protection"
- Previous message: me: "Re: vius"
- In reply to: N. Miller: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Next in thread: Phil Weldon: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Reply: Phil Weldon: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Reply: Ian Hoare: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
