Linux-Advocacy Digest #398, Volume #26 Sun, 7 May 00 17:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Malicious scripts on Unix ("ccghst")
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Craig Kelley)
Re: Off-topic ? ("ccghst")
Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (Mike Marion)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Craig Kelley)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Let's POLL! ("Rich C")
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Malicious scripts on Unix (Bob Tennent)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (David Steuber)
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! ("ccghst")
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 15:20:44 -0400
On 6 May 2000 17:01:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>> Look, I just think the whole notion of "dumbing down the end user" is
>> bullshit. Nobody has been "dumbed down". It's just that computers are
>> now being used by people who wouldn't go near them as little as 10
>> years ago. There's nothing dumb about these people; it's no more
>> reasonable to expect them to know how to configure sendmail or make
>> perl bring them the morning paper than it is to expect them to be able
>> to rebuild the engines in their cars.
>
>A nonsensical argument. People are being hurt as a direct result of
>their ignorance about computers every single day. Microsoft chooses to
>hide more and more of the details of their operating systems from the
>end user as a result, because they think that this strategy will lead to
>less breakage.
>
>But as we've seen, it only leads to more.
>
>On the other hand, Unix distributors handle this problem by giving
>their users MORE POWER TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
>
Give me a break. With each passing year, Unix resembles Windows more
and more. Unix's latest developments - things like Konqueror - are
direct ripoffs of Windows technologies (and those of other consumer
systems). Traditional Unix mail readers may lack the ability to launch
attachments, but lacking functionality is a far cry from giving users
"the power to defend themselves". After all, Windows can run a crappy
command line mailreader with next to zero functionality as well as
Unix can. Sorry, but that's not any kind of power.
>>
>> By far the biggest is the Internet, and Microsoft of course
>> had nothing to do with its initial rise. But they do deserve a (small)
>> part of the credit for the other reason - computers are easier to use
>> today than they were back then. Their marketing and developer support
>> programs helped as well.
>
>I think you should be thanking apple most of all, because it is from
>them that microsoft gets most of their 'innovations'.
>
I think Xerox deserves the credit for inventing the basic GUI, and
Apple for popularizing it. But Microsoft has done some great stuff
too, especially in the area of component technology.
>>
>> Heh. Look, I guarantee you that I know more about Unix than you do.
>
>Two things happen when a person comes to a certian point in the knowledge
>of a particular subject; they stop posturing, and they stop supposing
>that they know more than anyone else. I see that you have not reached
>this point yet.
>
Nah, I just believe in responding in kind. When you started acting
like a shithead, I felt I had the right to return the favor. Call it a
personality flaw if you wish.
>>
>> I
>> spent many years on the job developing high-end scientific software
>> exclusively for Unix.
>
>Kewel, what is it?
>
The Unix products I've worked on are as follows (companies in
parentheses, software categories in brackets):
CADDS (Prime/Computervision/PTC) [CAD]
QUANTA (Polygen/MSI) [high-end molecular modeling]
Centrum (Polygen) [scientific publishing]
DISCOVER (SETech) [information system for software development]
>>
>> It's just that I wouldn't want to force any of
>> that crap on my dad or other regular Joes like him. It's great for
>> hobbyists and servers, but when it comes to the consumer desktop, Unix
>> is so bush league that it isn't funny.
>
>I dont seem to have a problem with it.
>
Neither do I, but that doesn't change things.
>>
>> Windows is a hell of a lot
>> better, and Mac is much better still. Unfortunately, the Mac has too
>> many architectural problems for my tastes. Here's hoping the new OS
>> fixes them.
>
>Architectural problems? Like what?
>
The hardware is fine. I was talking about architetural problems in
classic MacOS. Do you really want me to list those?
------------------------------
From: "ccghst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,local.unix.general
Subject: Re: Malicious scripts on Unix
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 15:43:47 -0400
Brian Fristensky wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Just for the record, I tried sending myself
>a C-shell script as an attachment. The attachment
>had no file extension, such as .csh, to
>identify the type of file.
<snip>
>These mailers are therefore a little bit
>more secure about executable attachments,
>in the sense that you have to do a bit
>of thinking before you execute.
>Nonetheless, Unix mailers are still susceptible
>to malicious scripts. Perhaps the
>people who write mailers on ALL systems
>should rethink whether it is really
>a good idea to allow direct execution.
It's a good point. If the functionality is desirable to
some people, it should at least be -disabled- by
default, and require user intervention to activate
the feature.
Personally, I can't see any real value in direct
execution (but then, I don't send cute little
programs to other people, either ;> ).
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 07 May 2000 13:52:32 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Boris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There are enterprise-level AV solutions out there. They scan e-mail
>> as it enters corporate network: on firewall, etc. Once new virus
>> has been identified and signature list updated, that virus won't be
>> able to pass firewall. The critical factor here is how fast new
>> virus spreads (across Internet).
>
> Neat. How much do THEY cost? I'd like to do a cost comparison
> between that solution and mine. :)
We use sendmail+amavis+mcafee on a Linux box, ourselves. Not only did
we reject all subjects containing "ILOVEYOU" withing the first 10
mintues of the "virus", but a couple hours later it was filtering out
all the copies using the nice EXTRA.DAT file.
Total cost: $0 (we have a site license for Mcafee, and I have no idea
how much the central IT people pay for it). It's nice having UNIX
protect the Outlook users ;)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "ccghst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Off-topic ?
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 15:54:43 -0400
Alberto Trillo wrote in message <5YWQ4.1274$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I do not know if this post is off-topic or not, may be a little. The
>last Microsoft related famous virus (I LOVE YOU) has made
>me though about how can it be proved that a person is its
>programmer ?
It would be difficult to prove absolutely; but the law
doesn't require absolute prove, just beyond any
reasonable doubt.
>Are logs accepted by the law ?
Yes, in the same fashion as any other insecure
documentary evidence, such as diaries or sign-in/
sign out sheets.
>Aren't logs too much easy to be false ?
They can be falsified, certainly. But the legal
system has to deal with the possibility that
documents may be altered all the time.
For example, employment records are accepted
in court all the time, and they can (and have) been
falsified.
Usually, the court depends upon evidence from
multiple sources, or from the same source over
a period of time as a way to substantiate
documentary evidence that may not be untainted.
In this case, as I understand it, the ISP that
hosted the site from which this worm downloaded
a password grabbing utility had been caught
in similar stunts (on a smaller scale) more than
once, and kicked off the system. That sort of thing
shows a history of behavior that tends to support
server logs that would indicate guilt.
Note that I am not a lawyer (I just play one on TV ;>)
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 20:02:45 GMT
Tim Kelley wrote:
> replicate a "/" structure (with /bin /etc /sbin) as /usr/local does. Ooh unix
is sooo organized.
I'll take a unix box's layout over a windows one anyday. On a unix box, a
binary will be in a *bin, library in a *lib, conf in *etc (with user-specific
conf files in ~/programrc-ish files). At least there's a suggested standard
that most admins can follow.
Windows, OTOH... random dll/ini files in windows, windows\system,
windows\system32, program dirs, etc...
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed." - Bill Gates in an interview with
Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 07 May 2000 14:01:55 -0600
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > So, OK, what's the answer? I think we all agree that something like the
> > "ILOVEYOU" virus will continue to happen in increasing frequency. How do
> > you stop it? You can't keep arresting 14 year olds everytime this
> > happens, you have to decide that security is important.
>
> 1. Get out a clue stick and *cough*re-educate*cough* people who open
> attachments they know nothing about.
Microsoft is the responsible party for making attachments so common.
If they'd just live with real standards instead of making the IT world
forward Word documents...
Looking at this situation from someone who grew up with networks, it's
obvious that the corporate computer companies are to blame here. Who
would have known that CNN would be rporting the latest virus, back in
the BBS days of the 80s. We had virii back then too, but it was
limited to those who downloaded untrused binaries. People
communicated with language (text); it would have been an insult to
post "some thoughts" (or a loveletter..) as an attachment.
These companies like to make everything "easy" to do. Just plug it
in, and email your attachments. I vote that we re-educate the users
by stripping off all attachments on the SMTP servers...
> 2. Get your sysadmin to distribute a little registry patch to make the
> default action of a .vbs file to "Edit" instead of "Open". Have said patch
> installed during a login script.
Kludge.
What if it had been a .exe? Would you still reccomend this action?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 7 May 2000 15:07:08 -0500
In article <8f447q$dhl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Please detail to us how you're going to detect the difference between
>> > "dangerous" and "safe" attachments.
>>
>> Every binary and vb-script is potentially dangerous. A jpeg, text file,
>> java file executed in a sandbox is not. It's easy enough.
>
>Great, so how are you going to allow users to execute their safe, approved
>scripts ?
This is well understood and generally handled correctly in browser
downloaded java applets - it isn't simple but the work had been
done and there is not much of an excuse for ignoring it. Things
received by email are even less trustworthy than things from
a web site you choose to visit.
>> Firstly, it shouldn't display a warning when opening a .avi file or a .doc
>> file without embedded executable content.
>
>So you also want the mail program to know enough about filetypes (like
>.docs) to go scanning through them for dangerous content. Fantastic.
It should either know the difference between programs that display
content and those that let the content take control and only issue
warnings for the latter, or it should only hand off to programs
that understand safe sandbox execution like java applets. I think
the percentage of people fooled would have been substantially
less if the vbscript execution knew it was running untrusted
content and warned the user before each file operation.
>I strongly diagree. I don't want to have to go screwing around in the
>registry just so I can have mpegs or avis automatically play when I double
>click them. Or for opening .txt and .c files.
And malicious file deletions? Remember that it is not particularly
difficult to spoof email.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Date: 7 May 2000 15:24:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think /usr/share is just for platform independent application data files (gimp
>brushes, dictionaries, icons, wallpapers, etc), not programs, as it doesn't
>replicate a "/" structure (with /bin /etc /sbin) as /usr/local does. Ooh unix
>is sooo organized.
/usr/share is for things that can be NFS mounted cross-platform from
a single master copy, and yes, that is a very useful concept.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Let's POLL!
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 16:40:34 -0400
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Let me just say that,
Just because some 12 year old kid launches a VB script virus,
and YOUR company ingests this virus, should the employee's
who have double clicked our the attachment using YOUR companies
OUTLOOK EXPRESS be disciplined?
Absolutely, UNLESS there was no formal training by the IT department on the
precautions one should reasonably take to protect against such things, in
which case the IT department should be disciplined.
Why do you figure that corporations establish policies
such as these? Don't they realize that someday, someone,
will indeed take this to court and challenge this.
Do corporate institutions think they can WIN in a situation
where THEY gave the employee in question the power to
EXECUTE a virus from the software the corporation provided to
ALL their employee's, trained or NOT.,
As I said above, if the employee was trained, and said employee ignored such
training in executing the virus, the employee is responsible. This is
similar to if said employee were to violate the company's rules regarding
sexual harassment or smoking in the building.
Is it intelligent for a company to have a policy, where by,
it is forbidden to click on any E-mail attachments?
Probably, yes. It would be more intelligent to filter out attachments that
are exe files or scripts that can be run as if they were executable
programs. Many companies in fact do do this.
Is it intelligent for a company to DRILL your systems administrator
for allowing the virus to come into your company, even though there is
NOTHING he can really do about it!
IF the systems admin took reasonable precautions, such as training
personnel, filtering email to the extent allowed by the software at his
disposal, then no, (s)he should not be held accountable. If the systems
admin was negligent in any of these areas, then (s)he should definitely be
ripped a new one.
Does it make any sense to continue to blame the 12 year old
who wrote the script and sent it out via an E-mail to drop
½ the Microsoft equipped corporations around the world?
Shouldn't we make it a policy within the United States to
EXPECT terrorist actions from within and abroad based on
past actions, example, OKC? Does it make sense to you
that corporations such as defense contractors will put
up huge concrete barricades, and hire guards equipped with
bomb sniffing dogs yet continue to allow Microsoft in their
offices as the mainstay of their E-mail handling clients?
The 12 (or 23, or whatever) year old SHOULD be held accountable, even made
an example of. But that should not absolve system administrators of their
responsibilies. And if system admins took this threat more seriously, then
the software manufacturers would HAVE to follow suit (or they wouldn't sell
any more software.)
Have you heard someone within your organization BLAME the
problem we've just experienced with the ILOVEYOU virus on
the fact that the operating system was connected to the
internet in the first place? Does this kind of explanation
logic seem flawed to you in any way?
If the organization has nothing to gain by being connected to the internet
in the first place, then it would be a valid argument. But (as is the case
with most companies) they are NOT connected to the 'net unless it is
beneficial to do so.
Wouldn't it be MORE intelligent to run an OS such as LINUX
,where by, employee's could click on A script or .exe and
have nothing happen as it WON'T run it! They can look at it
but it won't trash out their corporate world then E-mail
the rest of the world with a copy of itself?
If the organization can accomplish the tasks it needs to with a more secure
operating system, then yes, it would be more intelligent. However, many
tasks an organization needs to accomplish, can only be reasonably done on a
Windows variant OS. For them, it makes more sense to increase security
precautions and training.
How many people have you met who still don't seem to understand that
Microsoft operating systems are based on a
nearly 20 year old tradition of a stand alone P.C. Concept?
That security was never an issue for Microsoft? Do you now
understand why Microsoft says security isn't an issue with
Windows?
Microsoft is only interested in the 'net for making money. They plan to sell
operating systems that don't work until you go on line and register them, so
that they have their hooks into your system. They plan on selling
application software that resides on THEIR servers, and you PAY for the
privilege of editing your files on THEIR servers, where THEY have access to
your data.
And yet they continue to IGNORE even the most mundane of security issues.
With disparate positions like this, they must think that the computer-using
public is really naive. Their progress in the next five years will directly
reflect how much they've underestimated the intelligence of that public.
I'm going to be very curious to read the answers if anybody
responds on this newsgroup. I would love to read the answers. What
are YOUR answers to these questions.
Charlie
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Date: 7 May 2000 15:39:30 -0500
In article <NhgR4.187727$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So once again, it's NOT NT problem at all. It has to do with abundance of
>features in
>> Office and easy programmatic access to those features.
>
>Ahhh, finally the advantages of Unix are becoming clear: by making
>_everything_ painfully difficult, it prevents us from doing much of
>_anything_, including bad things.
No, this is absolutely backwards. From the original command line
and text mode roots, the philosophy of unix has always been that
every program includes the functions of all the others via shell
escapes and pipes. Nothing has every stopped any unix user from
piping any content through any program that he is allowed to execute.
Most mailers include pipe capability, so if you have a script in
the message you can send it through the appropriate interpreter.
Worst case would be to pop it into an editor, then pipe the range
containing the script to the interpreter from there. For example,
go into vi and enter a line that says:
ls -l
then with your cursor on that line, type !!sh
does it look like unix is preventing you from doing anything you
want? (Or, if you didn't want the output back in the edit buffer
you can do :w !sh instead).
The difference is that unix users have paid attention to the
history of the danger of allowing such use and generally don't do it
automatically with untrusted content.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,local.unix.general
Subject: Re: Malicious scripts on Unix
Date: 7 May 2000 20:31:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 05 May 2000 13:38:43 -0500, Brian Fristensky wrote:
>Unix mailers are still susceptible
>to malicious scripts.
You've ignored a rather significant difference between Windows
and Unix (or NT W2k) systems: no security. Even if a malicious script
is executed on a properly configured Unix box it will only affect the files
accessible to the luser, *not* crucial system files.
Bob T.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 20:59:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
' Funny to see someone who calls himself a federalist flame Germans.
' You're probably too busy being a red-blooded American to once get some
' real education or even only a look over the edge of your plate.
Education is overrated. It's just another way for the government to
brainwash you.
Try to remember that all the good things in life were invented here.
We invented the hamberger, and french fry (why did we name it that?).
We didn't invent lawyers, but we did perfect them. If only they
wouldn't scatter like roaches when something starts to go, "beep
beep!"
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
http://www.packetphone.org/
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
From: "ccghst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 16:26:33 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>This is the basic flaw in the Microsoft system as any
>file can be deemed executable simply by changing it's
>extention. And a systems administrator can't change that.
This is a legitimate, if unoriginal point. File extensions
are an extremely weak method of differentiating file
types.
>See, a small, lightweight personal computer operating system doesn't
>need serious security. And to introduce
>such security was a frustration for the target audience of
>the operating system; which was the untrained - typical -
>U.S. Homeowner.
>And they kept it that way and never changed it. Even in
>NT we see the basic structure of Windows 3.11 when it comes
>to security issues.
Ahhh, maybe. Influenced by Windows 3.11. Backward
compatibility and so on. I agree there are too many
compromises for backward compatibility. But I also
deal with people every day who literally froth at the
mouth at the prospect of changing one silly legacy
feature.
I once spend 3 days in management meetings over
the issue of using a 4 character file extension for a
custom document type.
The app was designed for 95/NT only, no chance of
ever needing a 16-bit version. Management asked if
we could use a file extension that wasn't a recognized
one, to prevent users opening it outside the app, and
corrupting the file.
Originally, management suggested the initials of the
application; but that extension was already in use.
Me and the other NT guy on the project suggested using
a 4 or 5 character extension to prevent any collision,
figuring most mainstream apps would stick with 3
characters for some years yet.
The suggestion was met with stunned silence, followed
by mild panic, provoking the 3 days of meetings to
discuss this "critical" design issue.
Giving up some old features is sensible, logical, and
without argument the right way to go. The fly in the
ointment is that users (and corporate management)
are not sensible or logical.
>In the Microsoft world, a virus has the reign of the entire
>hard drive. There is nothing kept PROTECTED. You don't
>have a root account in the Microsoft world, you have at
>most a administrator account which doesn't have the same
>POWER to control the users as the Unix model does.
Not completely accurate. The power is there, it
just isn't used or enabled (on NT; when discussing
security, there is no way to accurately compare
95/98 to Unix. Macintosh, yes.).
I won't argue which security model is best, just that
NT certainly can protect the system from this sort
of thing, if the administrator chooses tp do so.
>My machine doesn't blue screen or need re-booting. I've
>had it up for 4 months at a crack between power outages.
>It takes a power outage around here to force me to re-boot.
Same here. In NT. Not saying it isn't an issue, people
do have these sorts of problems. Just pointing out that
not everyone has these problems. Those of us who
don't have them don't really care how much trouble other
people have.
>$45 dollars to buy Suse 6.4 and get all that!
>Or an honest $6,000 to go the Microsoft way and get an inferior OS.
Inferior security (by default) is a given. Not overall
inferiority. Whether something is a good tool/OS
depends far more on what you want to do with it
than its inherent qualities. Personally, I don't care
for Macs, but for some people, they're perfect.
Its like arguing which vehicle is best; a Ford F 150
or an 4-door Escort; which is better has very little
to do with quality and a great deal to do with
whether you you haul firewood or your kids.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 22:09:54 +0100
Boris wrote:
>
typically; even if you did, NTFS protects each user's files. For
example, if me and Joe
> both have files on the same NT box and neither of us has admin access and sysadmin
> protected us from each-other by setting permissions appropriately, any executable
>run by
> me will NOT be able to destroy (or even view) Joe's data (and vice versa).
Not completelytrue. If NT is allowed to run 16 bit apps (which is
required in some compaies which have legacy software) they can take free
reign over everything (by using direct hardware IO), and could easily
trash the computer. It can be disabled, but that is not always possible.
Under *NIX, this won't happen.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
