<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
Jason Burzenski wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid9BDD6D4AD0795C46974D7D46C17883B8080AFBD6@ahm_exchange2">
<pre wrap="">I tested McAfee command line scanner a few months ago and found it extremely
outdated. I had to find old versions of libraries to make the scanner work
on my RH9 box.</pre>
</blockquote>
FYI see: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailscanner/serve/cache/153.html">http://www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailscanner/serve/cache/153.html</a><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid9BDD6D4AD0795C46974D7D46C17883B8080AFBD6@ahm_exchange2">
<pre wrap=""> I was unable to resolve any of my issues via support calls /
emails as none of the technicians seemed to know what the product was.
I wouldn't recommend this product until McAfee/NAI updates the tool or
commits some resources to supporting it.
This brings up a interesting point that I did not hear mentioned in the
analysis. For me, McAfee unix command line scanner was included in our
enterprise virus management purchase. Some organizations who are already
heavily licensed for desktop support may be able to squeeze a handful of
command line scanners out of their vendors for nothing if they are not
already included.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Bellavance [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ugob@CAMO-ROUTE.COM">mailto:ugob@CAMO-ROUTE.COM</a>]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:11 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:MAILSCANNER@JISCMAIL.AC.UK">MAILSCANNER@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a>
Subject: Re: Complete Virus Scanner Review
Superb job.
I don't know why someone would decide not to use Mcafee... at
less than 20$ perpetual... :)
Ugo
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>