For information; this also shows how good mailbase is!
Valerie
-------
Forwarded Message Follows -------Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999
11:46:26 +0100 (GMT) Subject: Re: Virus Scanning
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
We're all too aware of the problems caused by viruses in email messages,
and are looking at possible solutions.
We already have certain blocks in place. For example, the melissa virus
didn't reach any Mailbase lists because we could identify it from the
message headers and reject it (as we do for much of the spam sent to
Mailbase lists.)
However, there will be resource problems in checking every incoming
message for viruses. Richard Kay put the problem nicely:
> Another problem here is the processing capacity needed to scan an
> increasing volume of mail against an exponentially increasing number of
> virus variants, within a growing number of methods of encapsulating and
> compressing virus containing mail attachments.
Jill Whitaker has pointed out that some sites do reject incoming messages
which contain viruses. This tends to be done by the smaller sites, which
use Microsoft Mail Exchange to distribute mail, and which also have
proportionally less mail to handle.
--
Bronwen Reid, Mailbase, Computing Service, University of Newcastle, NE1 7RU
Tel: (0191) 222-8214 Email: [log in to unmask]
*********************************************************
Valerie Ferguson
Postgraduate Medical & NHS Libraries Adviser
John Rylands University of Manchester
Oxford Rd Manchester M13 9PP
Tel: 0161 275 3729/7386
Fax: 0161 273 7488
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
*********************************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|