One point that I don't think has been covered is that he posted a
virus warning that could only affect PeeCee Winlusers who read mail
with a windows based mail reader to linux-diald, a Unix mailing list.
Most unix users use a text based mail reader and are therefore immune
to viral attacks by simply opening a piece of mail. Even people who
use a GUI mail tool under Unix are immune to any virus targetted at a
Windows platform.
Frankly, anyone who uses a mailer that will automatically execute
arbitrary code contained in a data transfer from an unknown source
deserves to choke on every lame ass virus that gets spammed in his
direction.
Just my $.02,
e.
On Wed, Nov 04, 1998 at 09:00:29PM -0800, Michael Parker wrote:
> >Subject: Virus or Hoax ?
> >Berfore i get more "You are an Idiot" or "Fuckoff loser" mails i will
> >set something straight.
> >I dont want to offend people but i got it from a trustable source
>
> I dunno if this is a virus or a hoax... The way I see it is this:
>
> IF it is a hoax and it's reported as a virus, SO WHAT? Paranoia is not
> necessarily a bad thing.
>
> On the other hand, there are undoubtably messages with the specified
> subject out there which are viruses. e-Mail has an amazing way of
> masquerading itself with ANY subject, so while I appreciate reports of
> viruses, it seems to me that a report of an email virus, when the report
> creates a wariness based on a specific factor of the email which could
> EASILY change at any given time, is a bit futile. Are the people who
> post these warnings going to release a new one EVERY time some
> einstonian freak hacker changes the message subject? I think not.
>
> When I got the first message, a warning, it was obviously with good
> intention, and I appreciate this (however, I do ask that you curb virus
> warnings to me, unless they are real viruses that don't become entirely
> different with the press of 3 or 4 keys by some insane moron out
> there)... Oh yeah, and correct the spelling of my name in your address
> book - it's Pharkus not Pharkas.
>
> The second message accused the first message of being a hoax? C'mon
> people! Not only is a warning of an email virus a waste of time, but so
> is declaring such things a hoax! Can any of you guarantee that if I get
> a message with the subject in question, it is a virus? Didn't think so.
> Can any of you guarantee that it ISN'T? Of course not! Stop wasting my
> time!
>
> I don't even remember what the third message was..
>
> The fourth message is a natural response apparently almost as enraged as
> I am, but for a different reason, and DEFENDING the theory that warning
> people of a variable virus is useful... grr...
>
> What I do know for sure about this is that, to date, I have received
> four e-mails for one useless warning. One was good, two was pushing it,
> three and four are just plain offensive. Every day I zoom into Hotmail
> expecting e-mail about varying electronic projects I am doing, some of
> which I have the potential to make money from. Every time I see that I
> have new mail and wait for my massive INBOX to load, and EVERY time it's
> another extension to the damn e-mail virus saga. Give me a damn break!
>
> Disgruntl- er... uhh... oh yeah.
> Pharkus.
>
> ... If all else fails, throw another megadolt across it!
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Eric Brunson * _ o * Faster and faster,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * / //\ until the thrill of speed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \>>| * overcomes the fear of death
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \\,
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
