Re: Swen and Earthlink
From: Phil Weldon (pweldon_at_mindspring.com)
Date: 09/25/03
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Virtual Private Network Is One Of The Hackers Secrets"
- Previous message: Phil Weldon: "Re: virus protection"
- In reply to: Dudley Henriques: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Next in thread: Ian Hoare: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:29:11 GMT
Exactly right.
Phil Weldon, pweldon@mindspring.com
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@putearthandlinktogether.com> wrote in message
news:OgpowjxgDHA.2172@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> 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: Mike: "Re: Virtual Private Network Is One Of The Hackers Secrets"
- Previous message: Phil Weldon: "Re: virus protection"
- In reply to: Dudley Henriques: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Next in thread: Ian Hoare: "Re: Swen and Earthlink"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
