[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <200401271259.15322.robochan@twcny.rr.com>
From: robochan at twcny.rr.com (robochan)
Subject: This is getting a bit ridiculous
It's been what, 2-3 years now that outlook viruses have been spoofing senders?
For as long as these things have been propagating and spoofing the sender
address...these antivirus software packages STILL send a reply to SPOOFED
senders telling them that they sent the wretched thing.
It more than doubles the amount of network traffic, and totally without merit
or need. I'd say it more along the lines of triples-quadruples the amount of
traffic, since the antivirus programs often also send a complete copy of the
infected attachment alongside it - as well as sending it out to people who
never sent it in the first place. Actually, I'd say considerably more than
quadruples...
Consider the average address book...
Let's conservatively say 25 email addresses are contained. That one infected
person then immediately sets off the antivirus software to send "infection
alerts" to 25 other people. So, conservatively, the antivirus software is
tacking on 25x the traffic.
Now who's responsible for all the network slowdowns...
The actual virus?
Or the antivirus companies that knowingly and needlessly, send "alerts" to
uninfected spoofed senders?
Let's not even get into cpu cycles...
I, for one, have received at least 45 "alerts" about this latest outlook virus
in the last 24 hours - SOLELY from antivirus software. I don't run windows or
outlook, so I'm not susceptible to this. The antivirus software is
responsible for 45x the amount of network traffic I've gotten, I'm just one
person.
Thanks, outlook+antivirus software, for making it so that even those immune
from the virus still have to suffer the ill effects.
Sorry for the rant, thanks for your time.
...Rob
--
If encryption is outlawed, only 3462AFC909DE11D235FDAE
Powered by blists - more mailing lists