To send or not to send 'virus in email' notifications?

Wed Aug 20 14:54:59 UTC 2003

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:25:28 EDT, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com>  said:
> Considering the amount of email traffic generated by responding to 
> forged  virus laden email from culprits like sobig should email virus 
> scanning systems be configured to send notifications back to sender or not?

It isn't like the A/V vendors can't put a single bit in the description that says
"uses real address" or "uses forged address" and only send a notification when
the "real" bit is set.  However, a lot of them seem to be more interested in
pumping out PR and FUD.

Worst part is if one of them had been smart, they'd have invented such a bit,
patented it, and then shipped "New! Improved! Now with less confusing
messages", and used the patent to make sure nobody else did.  Now *that* would
be a selling point for their product, but noooo... ;)  They've missed their
chance.  Feel free to cite this e-mail as prior art if somebody tries it now...
;)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20030820/611207d0/attachment.sig>