Re: Open letter to Trend Micro
From: Les Connor [SBS MVP] (les.connor_at_DEL.cfive.ca)
Date: 05/07/04
- Next message: Marty Hauville: "XP Home on SBS 2003... anything?"
- Previous message: root: "Re: Trend not updating on clients"
- In reply to: David Schrag: "Re: Open letter to Trend Micro"
- Next in thread: Trevor OE News: "Re: Open letter to Trend Micro"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 20:41:33 -0500
Hi David,
Your points are well taken.
I differ in that I want aggressive spam filtering, and I accept that this is
going to result in some false positives. Your choices are different, is all.
Trend C/S/M is a pretty good product in this light, it does allow us to make
these choices, rather than one size fits all.
-- Les Connor [SBS MVP] ------------------------------------- SBS Rocks ! "David Schrag" <david-no-spam@schrag.net> wrote in message news:OLU8xr8MEHA.624@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > "Les Connor [SBS MVP]" <les.connor@DEL.cfive.ca> wrote in message > news:uj6oS96MEHA.936@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > > That's OK, I don't mind disagreements. > > Good ... I love them! > > > If you don't get any false positives you either a) don't update your > > spamrule files, b) have your settings to low, c) have ineffective spam > > control software. > > I completely disagree here. I'd rather have 10-20 spams a day come through > as "good" than have a single real e-mail get flagged as "bad." I use K9 > (http://keir.net) to filter my POP mail, and of the last 10,400 messages > it's reviewed, 1,248 have been true positives, 233 have been false > negatives, and 0 have been false positives. That ratio suits me just fine. > > As I mentioned before, the problem with false positives is particularly > acute when the administrator, rather than the end-user, is the gatekeeper. I > don't think my clients want me really want me inspecting all their incoming > e-mail and deciding which ones to resend them. I think they'd see this as an > invasion of privacy and I don't think they'd want to pay for it. > > But this is a digression from the main point, which is that Trend ought to > make sure that the products meant to improve our lives don't have serious > side effects. > > > > > When email I expect doesn't show up, it's logical to check the spam > blocker > > first. It was a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. > > Sure, it's logical to check the spam blocker on the recipient's (my) end, > but how many spam blockers are designed to prevent SENDING spam as opposed > to receiving it? As you can tell from the posts to this group, a lot of > people were baffled as to the cause of the disappearing performance reports. > > > > > It really has nothing to do with SBS or Trend. In my case, only one SBS > > server's status report was blocked. All others continued on their merry > way. > > Why ? Hell, I don't know !! > > I wouldn't expect you or me to know. I wouldn't even expect Microsoft to > know. But I would expect Trend to know, and I'd expect them to know before > we do. That's really my only point. > > David > > > > > > "David Schrag" <david-no-spam@schrag.net> wrote in message > > news:u1GW4l6MEHA.2628@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > > > Gotta disagree with you, Les. I'm not upset with the fact that we have > to > > > spend money on Trend's software to deal with the spam problem. I'm upset > > by > > > the fact that Trend's software is causing its own set of problems. And > > since > > > both the reboot problem and the performance report quarantine problem > seem > > > to affect all SBS03 users, I would think that Trend could have prevented > > > these problems through better testing in their own shop. And it's not > like > > > these updates had to be rushed out the door in response to new threats > > like > > > Sasser. So what's the excuse? > > > > > > Is Trend the only software manufacturer to release buggy software? We > all > > > know the answer to that one. But I think they could do a better job, and > > > they could certainly do better in terms of tech support. (How 'bout a > > > monitored newsgroup like this one, for example?) > > > > > > "Les Connor [SBS MVP]" <les.connor@DEL.cfive.ca> wrote in message > > > news:uBrf6O6MEHA.2676@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > > > > David, > > > > > > > > I hear your frustration. But .... > > > > > > > > The problem is not Trend, the problem lies with those who spam (and > > > > manufacture malware), and with those who don't take reasonable > > precautions > > > > to prevent aiding the spammers. Our problem, A/V manufacturers > > opportunity > > > > ;-). > > > > > > > > FWIW, you'll have a difficult time beating the protection C/S/M offers > > at > > > > the price. Those with no spam control won't have the occasional false > > > > positive. Just a whole lot of spam. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Les Connor [SBS MVP] > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > SBS Rocks ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "David Schrag" <david-no-spam@schrag.net> wrote in message > > > > news:%23vgBFn5MEHA.3312@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > > > > > Could you folks please improve your testing regimen for C/S/M - SMB > > > > updates, > > > > > specifically on SBS03 servers? A month ago your update caused > > > spontaneous > > > > > server reboots, and now an update to eManager is quarantining our > > server > > > > > performance reports. You have a lot of fans in the SBS community ... > > but > > > > if > > > > > this keeps up you're likely to lose a bunch of them. Who knows ... > you > > > > might > > > > > even lose your MS Gold Certified Partner status. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Next message: Marty Hauville: "XP Home on SBS 2003... anything?"
- Previous message: root: "Re: Trend not updating on clients"
- In reply to: David Schrag: "Re: Open letter to Trend Micro"
- Next in thread: Trevor OE News: "Re: Open letter to Trend Micro"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
