symantec scan on MailScanner

[rob]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:34:11 +0100, Glenn Steen wrote
> On 08/02/06, Rob Freeman <rob at robhq.com> wrote:
> > Alex Neuman van der Hans wrote:
> > > BDC?
> > >
> > > Rob Freeman wrote:
> > >> Alex Neuman van der Hans wrote:
> > >>> Which ones do you already have?
> > >>>
> > >>> Rob Freeman wrote:
> > >>>> I was wondering if anyone was using this with MailScanner.  We are
> > >>>> looking to add another virus scan engine and got a good deal
> > >>>> through our parent company.
> > >>>> Thanks in advance
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Rob
> > >>>
> > >> Currently using clam, f-prot, and avg.  We just got audited, and they
> > >> wanted us to add one of the " big " vendors to the list.
> > >
> > They do not include that on the " big " ones.  We work for a bank and
> > they want something the recognize like mcafee, Symantec, etc etc.  We
> > have not had an email virus in 3 years, but per the audit they asked for
> > more of a known name scanner.  They gave us a deal on Symantec.  The
> > wonders of working for a big company.
> 
> For the love of... Why on earth should you choose one of the worst
> performers when it comes to updates? Even McAfee is (mostly)
> better.... At least in my experience...
> I work in the financial sector (sort of) too. We happened to have a
> site license on McAfee, so that got included alongside BitDefender an
> ClamAV (which is our "primary email AV", simply by dint of catching
> most viruses), so ... that's OK. But the value it adds is limited
> (still, the relatively few times it's been the "sole detector", I've
> been glad to have it:-).
> 
> I'd advice you to look at what you have on your workstations, You
> might be able to use that at low/no cost.
> 
> But the whole "auditing, then offering" thing is a bit smelly, don't you think?
> Sounds to me like a pure racketeering thing "... you need OUR product
> too to be safe...". One wonders what their cut is;-).
> 
> If you are to add anything, BitDefender is a better fit (You could
> argue that f-prot and avg are "big enough", and that McAfee, Trend,
> Symantec and the rest aren't really worth your while).
> 
> But then ... I sense a PHB here, somewhere:-):-) Perhaps your options
> are limited by ... policy?
> 
> --
> -- Glenn
> email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
> work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
> --
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
> 
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
> 
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

Oh I agree, I am not a fan of anything norton, but was asked by the allmighty bank to
add something they understand.  The joys of big buisness.  We have used AVG here on
workstations and servers since 1999 with very good success.  They were a little iffy on
us using that.  I will see if I can convince them about us adding bitdefender instead,
but have a feeling they will balk.  The other one we mentioned and they seemed ok with
was sophos.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.