Outgoing Email Scan?

I don't understand why PhilS'comments raised some strong responses.
I think he is completely right. If you have a "clean" system for whatever reason (layered defence, best AV on the market, safe surfing, new system never exposed to anything...), your outgoing email should be fine.
Any tags on incoming emails other than the message my AV (Nod) appends I completely ignore as they are useless for the recipient. The program used may be crap, it might be great but never updated, it might have been misconfigured so that the scanning did not work properly or the tag might be completely bogus. Just because something is printed does not make it true.

 

Thank you my friend . Well put . And how does it equate to prevention or protection ? Are you determined to fight over something so trivial ? It does NOT equate into prevention . It EQUATES into letting you know it was scanned ! As my friend just said , it is the same as running a full scan and you are told at the end whether you have something or not . Why does this logic seem to escape you ? It is simple . And it is a layer of security . It informs you that it was scanned and nothing was found . Does that mean it is clean ? NOOOO . Does a full system scan with the AV of your choice come back as clean and you think everything is clean ? It escapes me how people cannot seem to grasp common sense .

 

I reckon there were some worms which used to add a tag message saying the email was checked by one of the AV programs to deceive the recipient so it's not a good idea to rely on it.

 

Calm down, Cujo, I wasn't fighting; I thought that I was being quite calm, in fact.

The word "prevention" was quoted from your own post, hence my question. I know the "email was scanned" tag doesn't prevent anything... That was my point.

Thanks for the insults; we need more of that around here. I suppose the mods will jump on my ass, though, as usual.

Well, whatever. The points being made, by multiple people, is that you run real-time protection, you do full system scans, and so on. Adding a tag to outgoing email isn't a "layer of security", it's a warm fuzzy.

And when you send email, the whole point is for it to be read and interpreted by someone else. But what is the recipient to garner from a blurb that says "this email was scanned"? Nothing. As someone else has already said, the program used could be misconfigured, malfunctioning, or outdated--or, you could have even typed the "this email was scanned" blurb by hand. It's useless.

------
This forum post was scanned with NOD32 3.10.43 Super-Duper-Pro 2008

Don't you feel safer now?

 

Exactly. And if you can't rely on it--and your recipients can't, either--what good is it?

What was that about grasping common sense?

------
This forum post was scanned with NOD32 3.10.43 Super-Duper-Pro 2008

Don't you feel safer now?

 

Now that gave me a warm fuzzy

 

I did not say that that it does equate to prevention. Please do not misrepresent me. Nor am I "fighting" over anything: I merely expressed an opinion that such a feature might be included as an option so that users had a choice, and that it might be considered as providing some degree of information for user and sender. No threat, challenge, disrespect or litigation intended!

 

Gentlemen, please play nicely in the sandpit, or a time out will be called for

Cheers

Blackspear.

 

Could you please explain quickly your system it seems interesting...

It sounds like it replaces outlook express or Thunderbird mail client

Thx

 

http://www.ritlabs.com/en/
TheBat is a very powerful and easy to use email client. It will do most anything that you can want from an email client. Just one of its benefits, is the ability to use add-ons i.e. plugins such as nod antivirus or different spam filters. Check out a trial version. See link above. I have tried many of the other email clients and I find this to be one of the best. Picture show just a few of the plugin.
The nod plugin scans incoming and outgoing.Go onto the bat forum and see what others that use it have to say. Sorry the . jpg didn't go through see http://www.ritlabs.com/en/solutions/avirus.php

 

Great thx for your swift answer will have a look at it.

 

OK, but just to clarify, does sarcasm and implicitly referring to others as children count as playing nicely? I didn't think so. As you were.

 

What is it about the word Gentlemen you do not understand Nameless ? The request was pretty straight forward and no reference to children was used except for those that possibly had the wrong perception. I suggest if you can not adhere to the request....don't post in this thread....fairly simple.

Regards,
Bubba

 

What is it about "sandpit" (aka "sandbox", a child's play area), and "time out" (a common punishment used on small children) that you do not understand, Bubba?

 

If you don't like the rules around here and being asked politely to be polite, then go elsewhere, it is that simple Nameless, don't try and ruin it for others who can make the choice to be polite.

Blackspear.

 

What you don't say is that there is no need to use the plug-in with TB!

I used TB! for over four years with NOD32 without the added complication of the plug-in and they both worked great together, but separately. Why needlessly introduce the potential for error - KISS!

 

I understand what you mean. It allow the scanning of email that is incoming and out going. Additionally (I'm no expert at this) but it also is used to scan non pop accounts. Here is copy of what was said about e-mail using SSL on the KAV board.

No anti-virus software can scan SSL-protected mail. This is not a KAV limitation.

The SSL protocol(s) are specifically designed to protect against “man in the middle” attacks, which is exactly what this would be. Were KAV to attempt it you'd get bad certificate errors, etc.

KAV may be able to protect some e-mail programs that use SSL by using a plug-in to do the scanning instead of scanning at the POP level. Here is a link http://forums.useice.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=1;t=2020

I guess this aplicable to all antivirus programs.