Actually, it's a very useful and desirable setup for companies, corporations and even ISP's. It's not anywhere close to censorship, unless you convince the virus companies to start adding certian phrases to their software (which is unliklely). In all of those cases there are benefits for the person running the server, for instance most new viruses send copies of not only themselves, but documents from the user's hard drive. These extra emails can quickly clog an email server, especially in a large organization, nevermind the spreading/destruction of potentially sensitive information. User education only goes so far. Having to administer a network, I've had to deal with 3 of the top five current viruses listed on antivirus.com . I would welcome email server scanning of viruses, since they all come from email, and I have a chronic problem with users that forward everything. I don't control the mail server right now (outsourced) though, so I'm using a corporate virus scanner which the user's can't change and I can control remotely - about the best solution so far, as they are always up to date. Besides, censorship is so time consuming that it's not cost effective. It's easy to censor something that has limited information (such as a newspaper - there are only so many articles per day) but you really can't control the distribution of email, web sites, etc since they are dynamic and there is simply too much information. Any rules based system can be defeated. Even the lists of 'objectionable' web sites are not good, and there are easy ways to get around every program that implements such a system. So, in essence, it's easier, better, cheaper, etc to make a policy, educate the employees (or customers) and enforce the policy using normal methods. People who try to control information (and therefore people) are going to be constantly frustrated. Virus protection, however, encompasses such a small space that it's relatively easy to do electronically. -Adam John Ferrell wrote: >Virus scanning at the server level would be an early step towards censorship >of all traffic! > >Not a desirable attribute. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dale Botkin" >To: >Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:26 AM >Subject: Re: [OT]: Virus > > >>On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Milan Pavlica YU7AEC wrote: >> >>>Is there any chances that PIC mail list server get those KAV for >>>scanning emails? >>> >>No. Not unless, of course, you want to write one that runs on an IBM >>mainframe under VM, and then get a job at MIT and convince your boss to >>let you install it. Should only take 15 years or so. >> >>>If Admin is interested, maybe all of us can donate to buy such product >>>to save us (our time, projects, HDD data etc etc etc)?!?!?!? >>> >>A much simpler solution would be for all Windows users to take the basic >>precaution of using antivurus software, and NOT RUNNING UNSOLICITED >>EXECUTABLES rceived via email. This was an old virus sent as a .BAT file, >>there's really no reason anyone should have been fooled. Virus scanning >>on the current list server simply isn't going to happen. >> >>Dale >> >>-- >>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! >>email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body >> >> > >-- >http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! >email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body > > > > > -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body