Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20020214104537.01e8e130@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:54:43 -0500 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: anybody else also infected In-Reply-To: <20020214153750.GJ23253@redhat.com> References: <8369-Thu14Feb2002153122+0000-starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk> <01A7DAF31F93D511AEE300D0B706ED92019ECD65 AT axcs13 DOT cos DOT agilent DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20020214091816 DOT 01ee0518 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20020214094510 DOT 01ea0710 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <3C6BD3F7 DOT 5080606 AT cportcorp DOT com> <8369-Thu14Feb2002153122+0000-starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:37 AM 2/14/2002, you wrote: >On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:31:22PM +0000, David Starks-Browning wrote: > >On Thursday 14 Feb 02, Peter Buckley writes: > >> I agree about the healthy skepticism- this was obviously a false > >> positive from the very start, but I don't think the faq addresses this > >> type of false positive. > > > >Addressing virus alerts in the FAQ has always been a dilemma for me. > >I do not like to give the advice "disable your antivirus software" or > >"turn off checking for C:\cygwin". It seems to me that such action > >could be exploited. > > > >Should the FAQ say something like "do not bother the list with virus > >alerts unless you have independently verified that it is not a false > >positive"? This would apply to all Cygwin software, package archives, > >DLLs, ... > > > >There was a special problem with Cygwin Setup because NAI/McAfee would > >hang the system when opening tar.gz archives. Maybe this is not a > >problem anymore, and can be removed from the FAQ. Or the advice could > >be simplified to be "update your antivirus software or replace it with > >another vendor's product". Of course not everyone can do that, but > >that's not our problem. > > > >Thanks for your opinions. > >My opinion is that common-sense practices don't belong in the FAQ. I have to say I agree. However, common sense seems to be loosely interpreted on this list. I guess the question is how much of a substitute for common sense should the FAQ be? ;-) For those that need the added support, I think the altered wording that David suggests (i.e. don't bother the list with virus alerts if you can't confirm them yourself) is worthwhile, considering that we already have a couple of virus entries. Of course, I have no delusions that having FAQ entries or changed wording will eliminate virus postings to this list. I personally would just like to be able to point to the entry in response and have that end the thread. OK, I know, I'm still living close to my utopia. ;-) Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/