[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20040204152010.GZ870@sentex.net>
From: damian at sentex.net (Damian Gerow)
Subject: Email
(Re-formatted for clarity. Please look into line wrapping.)
Thus spake Jos Osborne (Jos@...temi.co.uk) [04/02/04 10:13]:
> Most ISP's wouldn't touch the concept of being responsible for their
> client's e-mail security with a 10' barge pole. Apart from the
> obvious technical issues - they'd need an AV scanner to check the
> mail that would have to be capable of dealing with serious volumes -
> there are also issues of liability if anything doesn't work (I'm
> thinking along the lines of the medical court cases that have come up
> where doctors have been sued for not using the most advanced equipment
> that existed regardless of whether they actually had that equipment
> available at the time).
Actually, most ISP's need to offer some sort of AV/Spam scanning these days
if they want to remain in business. Think 'value-add services'. There are
many software packages that can handle large volumes of mail. And if one
server can't do it, there's a reason Round Robin RRs exist.
That's not to say that they're responsible for their client's e-mail
security, rather, they're offering a service to keep their client's e-mail
free of viruses. So long as they follow due diligence -- update defs
frequently, don't run massively outdated software, try to set the system up
to be difficult to circumvent -- there's little to worry about.
> Add to this privacy issues - they have to open up the e-mail to scan it
> - and you end up with a fairly horrible problem.
Yeah, if you have a crack team of virus analyzing monkeys sitting in the
back, opening up and manually checking every single piece of mail coming
through your network, you might have some privacy -- and load -- problems.
But then again, you might have bigger problems.
- Damian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists