From owner-freebsd-questions  Fri Jun 21 10:49:40 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA01523
          for questions-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mistery.mcafee.com (jimd@mistery.mcafee.com [192.187.128.69])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA01512
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from jimd@localhost) by mistery.mcafee.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA07068; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:58:49 -0700
From: Jim Dennis <jimd@mcafee.com>
Message-Id: <201006211758.KAA07068@mistery.mcafee.com>
Subject: Re: Missing Memory & shrinking drives (the moral)
To: tcg@ime.net
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 110 10:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: alk@Think.COM, questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <31CAD25B.7B18@ime.net> from "Gary Chrysler" at Jun 21, 96 12:48:27 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Tony Kimball wrote:
> > 
> >   The Moral of the story is:
> >   "Never post a small description of a problem when you know a complete
> >   expert in the field is lurking in the wings." :)
> > 
> > Quite the contrary.  The moral of the story is that unless you post
> > your own knowledge, partial or mistaken though it may be, it is
> > unlikely that an expert will ever post to correct errors or fill in
> > gaps, and as a result we all are less educated.  Your less complete
> > posting on the subject was the message which prompted the more complete
> > reply, and thus you bear partial responsibility for the more complete
> > reply as well, for which I thank you as well as its poster.
> 
> Yup, And we would of missed an educational (to some of us) read
> if Jim hadn't been tickled by Nate.
> 
> > It is often humbling to be educated.  It should never be humiliating.


	Besides -- I mostly agreed with Nate.  I'd seen the original message
	and saved it in my inbox as something to respond to -- but first I
	had to see to some of the details of training my replacement here,
	and handling some of the transition.

	My main concern was that someone on the list might actually get
	burned by this situation and have greater trouble isolating and
	solving a viral problem.  We do get a few calls a week from users 
	of Linux (and presumably FreeBSD'ers) and other *ix's that have 
	gotten infected.  (I don't know the actual numbers since I'm not
	in support -- but my girlfriend, who was in support until a couple
	of months ago, was the recognized site expert on "other OS'" --
	so I heard about some of them).

	Besides -- I wanted to plug our Unix scanners.  One misconception
	that I like to avoid about our ports of McAfee's SCAN to Unix is
	that there is some widespread Unix virus threat.  Our UVSCAN
	(Unix Virus SCAN products) currently scan for DOS/PC virii only.
	The product is intended to protect your DOS/Windows clients by
	running the scanner on your NFS and FTP servers.  (Unfortunately
	I've been too embroiled in expanding our infrastructure --
	going from 2 FTP servers, and one mail and one web server on a 
	single T1 to 3 FTP servers (with 10* the previous capacity) in a 
	DNS round robin ring, three mail servers, an internal webserver,
	an external webserver (with Commerce capabilities) and a 
	T3 + *four* internet bound T1's -- to actually do more than a 
	cursory review of the newest versions of SCAN).

	(Incidentally I may be available for some consulting in a 
	couple weeks -- I'll have .forward's from here).

Jim Dennis,
former System Administrator,
McAfee Associates