New antivirus scanning...

[kelvyn]

Just want to double-check something regarding this announcement (http://forum.powweb.com/showthread.php?t=38212):
There will be NO indication that email containing what may or may not be a false-positive (I work with AV software so I know it happens!) has been bounced or not?
For example, even though the return address was incorrect, I knew that when I got an email from an Windows ME machine with an IP address of Tiscali carrying a virus, it was almost certainly my Aunt in France. 20 minutes of phone call later, and she had de-virused her machine. Presumably this new implementation will stop things like this? Are there any figures on the level of false-positives than Clam has?
I'm all for anti-virus, but I remember the problems last time this was implemented, and I'd like a little more control in Ops, similar to this greylisting thing. I'd certainly like to get the email minus the attachment, or some notification of it as is industry-standard.

[James]

We have been scanning mail on the servers for three months. No valid email has been lost. We also have never implemented antivirus software or control thereof in OPS.

The industry "standard" is to delete these messages....

[stevel]

I've been having virus-detected e-mail deleted without notice for a year or more now, through SpamCop. Never had a problem with it. On the other hand, SpamCop gives me the option of getting a notice.

I have to agree with Kelvyn on one point - false positives are a reality with virus scanning. It may be a very low rate, but no virus scanner, especially a "no-name" one such as is being used here, is free from false positives.

[James]

Clam Antivirus is hardly a no name scanner... It was actually rated faster at updating virus definitions then most commercial scanners.

A virus is not like spam, it can be identified with 100% accuracy if its known, otherwise the message is let through...

[stevel]

Well, I've never seen it listed in the reviews of virus scanners and had never heard of it before. Frequency of updates is not a measure of quality - how accurate is it in identifying viruses and eliminating false positives? I also believe you are mistaken regarding "100% accuracy" - there are many cases of virus scanners improperly detecting viruses in innocent files because it matched a "signature". I will agree that e-mail virus scanning can be pretty close to 100% with a good product.

[RBB]

First I want to express my sincere appreciation for the efforts that PowWeb is making to block unwanted e-mail. I am sure that this sentiment is expressed by the thousands of other PowWeb users. I truly appreciate what you are trying to do to get rid of all this ridiculous e-mail.

Now my thoughts: I am subscribed to numerous e-mail newsletters from area venues that directly support the content of my Web site. I can see how these new anti-SPAM filters might interpret such newsletters as SPAM and shut them out. In particular, I receive notices from one theatre group that goes out in a group e-mail to several hundred recipients (on some days I receive multiple e-mail announcements from this group, all important to the content of my site). I can see how such e-mail could be misinterpreted as SPAM.

I raise this concern because I typically receive several such e-mails daily. In the past few days I have received NONE. I am certainly annoyed by all the e-mail that range from the ridiculous to the obscene, and I understand how it ties up the servers, but I have gotten used to going through my WebMail folders every morning and deleting the useless e-mail. Now that I am getting none, I am concerned that we have overreacted to the opposite extreme.

Any thoughts or comments? Thank you!

Sincerely,

RBB

[TMarie820]

I think it would be nice to get a notice too... I have mcafee corporate edition (don't ask) on my home pc and it scans my outlook amazingly well so that the virus is deleted but i still get the message.. if i could have that and then disable mcafee from slowing down my pc from scanning every little thing i do.. that would be great.

i will have to read into this av program today.

[James]

First I want to express my sincere appreciation for the efforts that PowWeb is making to block unwanted e-mail. I am sure that this sentiment is expressed by the thousands of other PowWeb users. I truly appreciate what you are trying to do to get rid of all this ridiculous e-mail.

Now my thoughts: I am subscribed to numerous e-mail newsletters from area venues that directly support the content of my Web site. I can see how these new anti-SPAM filters might interpret such newsletters as SPAM and shut them out. In particular, I receive notices from one theatre group that goes out in a group e-mail to several hundred recipients (on some days I receive multiple e-mail announcements from this group, all important to the content of my site). I can see how such e-mail could be misinterpreted as SPAM.

I raise this concern because I typically receive several such e-mails daily. In the past few days I have received NONE. I am certainly annoyed by all the e-mail that range from the ridiculous to the obscene, and I understand how it ties up the servers, but I have gotten used to going through my WebMail folders every morning and deleting the useless e-mail. Now that I am getting none, I am concerned that we have overreacted to the opposite extreme.

Any thoughts or comments? Thank you!

Sincerely,

RBB


First, greylisting doesn't filter your messages based on content... its not technically a spam filter, it just so happens to be good at it. I am on a number of mailling lists too, and I have not had a problem receving mail from any of them...

[RBB]

First, greylisting doesn't filter your messages based on content... its not technically a spam filter, it just so happens to be good at it. I am on a number of mailling lists too, and I have not had a problem receving mail from any of them...
OK then! I say "Onward and upward." Once I read all the new information and let it sink in, it sounds like a major improvement.