Bagle worm

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Clay a écrit :

It's not arrogant but it's misleading. Perhaps not intentionally, but
users WILL misinterpret the first sentence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it seems to me that users who have the sig feature enabled,
like it because they get comfort from the visual verification that
their AV did something they think it should do.
It's best not to add any
signature at all.
Click to expand...

Of course you know I agree completely. :-)
 
Frederic Bonroy said:
FromTheRafters a écrit :


Of course.


It's better, but not much, because people tend to misinterpret "no
viruses were found" as "there are no viruses".
Click to expand...

Yes, but it at least doesn't seem to specifically imply this.
Not too much one can do about what users infer. Maybe
a simple "Scanned by AVG" and a URL would have been
enough to satisfy the marketing department ~ users can
then infer all of the warm fuzzies they desire.
Of course an anti-virus
program eventually needs to tell the user about the result of the scan.
But note: I am talking *specifically* about the signature attached to
emails, NOT about a normal routine scan.
Click to expand...

So am I, I was just pointing out that the idea is not foriegn to the
developers ~ witness, the alert wordings.
Maybe that's why we seem to
disagree; I believe we don't.
Click to expand...

No, we are in agreement here.
....and yes, the complete absence of the sig would be desireable
except for those that wish confirmation that AVG actually does
something (i.e. that the sig is an indication that the AV is working).
I can't think of any foolproof signature right now. Perhaps something
like this:
Click to expand...

I'm not striving for foolproof, just something a little less dishonest.
"This message was scanned by XYZ. Its virus definitions may have been
out of date and even if they weren't, it's still not impossible that
a virus slipped through. Do not fully trust the result of this scan and
take precautions to avoid a virus infection."
Click to expand...

....but let's not go overboard. ;)
Not only is this signature totally meaningless and unhelpful, it's also
ugly. But at least it's not misleading as AVG's standard certification.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Frederic said:
kurt wismer a écrit :



And that's why it should be removed.
Click to expand...

while that would be preferable to me, i won't demand it... the only
thing i demand is that they stop lying...
 
Clay wrote:

How about...

"This message was scanned by XYZ.
XYZ encourages safe computing education as the best defense against
malware. See XZY web site for further information."

It's still advertising, but perhaps not so arrogant and misleading.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here?
If you uncheck the "Certify" boxes in AVG, your email will be tagged with the
following:
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004

Seems benign enough to me. It was "CHECKED". Nothing implied here.
Users are free to interpret any way they like.

Tom
 
Clay wrote:



Am I missing something here?
If you uncheck the "Certify" boxes in AVG, your email will be tagged with the
following:
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004

Seems benign enough to me. It was "CHECKED". Nothing implied here.
Users are free to interpret any way they like.

Tom
Click to expand...

It's the same implication that an "inspected" tag on an item gives.
 
tgeer43[AT]yahoo[DOT]com said:
Seems benign enough to me. It was "CHECKED". Nothing implied here.
Users are free to interpret any way they like.
Click to expand...

They will misinterpret it and Grisoft should know that.
 
Frederic said:
tgeer43[AT]yahoo[DOT]com said:
Seems benign enough to me. It was "CHECKED". Nothing implied here.
Users are free to interpret any way they like.
Click to expand...

They will misinterpret it and Grisoft should know that.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Observation: most people often read (hear) what they
want to read (hear) rather than what actually was written
(said).

J
 
tgeer43[AT]yahoo[DOT]com said:
Clay wrote:

How about...

"This message was scanned by XYZ.
XYZ encourages safe computing education as the best defense against
malware. See XZY web site for further information."

It's still advertising, but perhaps not so arrogant and misleading.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here?
If you uncheck the "Certify" boxes in AVG, your email will be tagged with the
following:
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004

Seems benign enough to me. It was "CHECKED". Nothing implied here.
Users are free to interpret any way they like.
Click to expand...

That is acceptable to me. I would rather not have to see the
advertisement at all, but at least this is not an overstatement
of their ability.
 
Am I missing something here?
If you uncheck the "Certify" boxes in AVG, your email will be tagged with the
following:
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/2004

Seems benign enough to me. It was "CHECKED". Nothing implied here.
Users are free to interpret any way they like.
Click to expand...

During the heat of battle, any AV sig advertising is undesirable to me
personally... However, at the end of the day, I truly don't care if
someone wants their AV to kiss each email. In my mind, it tends to
imply something about the user, but that matters not in the grand
scheme of things.
 
Back
Top