On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 06:28:03PM +0200, Phil Pennock penned:
> On 2001-07-25 at 17:03 +0100, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> > I've caught the Spanish version: the match in that case would be
> > '^Te mando este archivo para que me des tu punto de vista$'
>
> It doesn't require JavaScript, it doesn't use cookies. It seems to
> be up-to-date. The search-engine has always been able to answer the
> questions that I've put to it (although I haven't asked it for the
> meaning of life, the universe and everything).
What about, who came first, the chicken or the egg?
> I don't use Windows, but if I were to choose a virus-scanner based upon
> available evidence of company competence, Sophos wins. (Yeah, okay, I'd
> probably ask around and get a better metric, but there you go).
Well, I would'nt wanna start a holy war. However, I am very happy with
McAfee's Virus scanner running on my mail server. The reason we shopped
and decided upon mcafee was maintainance. Sophos releases a new binary
which should replace the older every 3 months. However, we
were most impressed by RAV. If you are protecting 1/2 domians, RAV has
the best protection I have seen so far. But it licensing is domain based
which for a MTA serving arond 30 domains becomes really expensive.
PS - So far not even 1 W32/Sircam has passed through successfully
through our mail server. (*touch-wood*)
My 2 cents.
-Kevin
--
There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a
suitable application of high explosives.
