Far be it from silicon.com to get all 'it was us what won it' - but it wasn't that long ago we were complaining about the problem of false virus alert notifications created by antivirus software ...and now one vendor has removed the function.
More likely it was the weight of user complaints about the wrongly directed messages, often relating to a spoofed email address appearing in the 'from:' field, which caused the change of heart.
The alerts had become one of the most annoying features of any virus outbreak - and ironically it was often worse for those who weren't infected.
It's nothing new to see the prevention of viruses resulting in nasty side-effects - ask anybody who's ever taken Larium for malaria - but the online community was starting to lose patience with the disruption caused by the 'cure'.
It sounds like Symantec is the first of many established antivirus vendors to drop this outdated and problematic function and that can only be good news.
After all it is hard enough worrying about sifting the spam from the legitimate email without worrying about the software you use to block emails from your inbox creating even more problematic email.
Many consumers were unduly worried about an alert telling them they had a virus and many businesses were worried about the cumulative effect of hundreds, or thousands, of emails taking up storage space and bandwidth unnecessarily.
But hopefully once this thorn is removed from the sides of systems administrators they can get on with the business of cleaning up the more serious threats to their networks.
Comments
There is 1 comment. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Why not trace the point-of-entry ISPs for viruses and spam, and email THEM?
Perhaps, rather than removing such notifications altogether, antivirus and antispam software manufacturers could be persuaded to add sufficient forensic intelligence into the software to analyze the message headers more accurately and trace the ISP owning the point of entry of the virus or spam into the Internet. The software could then email the relevant abuse@ address.
If the ISP postmasters dislike receiving the many such notifications then, maybe, just maybe, they will take a more active stance in warning users of the consequences of their infections or actions.
Tracing the originating ISP is not rocket-science!
Obviously, a more palatable solution for ISPs would be to scan incoming mail from end-users for viruses and spam, and warn them directly without forwarding the message. This would probably be better for users, too. It would be up to the user to justify to the ISP why the message should be sent, and encourage them to clean up their system faster, so they can send their mail freely again.
If ISPs allow spammers to connect via themselves or their users, then I believe they deserve to be effectively mail-bombed by anti-spam software (well, at least once for each target recipient of a spam message...).