Update on F-prot issue

[Richard Lynch]

I'm not a lawyer either and perhaps it's just wishful and naive thinking
on my part but I disagree.  I do not think we "must" license the mail
server version because we are not using the functionality that that
product provides. I do agree that using the workstation version would be
inappropriate.  From my perspective the file server version is the
correct one.

I don't need the functionality of the mail server version.  It includes
software that decodes mail files and scans the attachments.  That's what
you're paying for and I don't need it or have any intention of using
it.  What I need is the file server version which scans files for
multiple people.  Where the files come from is irrelevant.  They are
still just files on a file server.

What if my operation were like this.  All users are required to save
their e-mail attachments to disk and put them on our file server.  We
periodically scan the checked in files and notify the users that they
are clean and can be safely used.  Should such an operation license the
file server version or the mail server version?  How is using MS to
automate the process any different?  Keep in mind that with MS I'm not
scanning e-mail attachments I'm just scanning files.  I wrote the
software that decodes the attachments and puts them on the file server
(that's a rhetorical I which really means Julian :) ) and that has
nothing to do with the virus scanning vendor.  In this case I'm just
using their software to scan files on my file server.

What's wrong with my thinking on this?

--
Richard Lynch <rich at mail.wvnet.edu>