Chuq wrote,
V> When that happens to me, I simply decode the message they sent me
V> telling me they arne't sending into HTML into it's HTML form, and
V> then return it to them as text. (grin). I rarely get an argument
V> after that. Although every once in a while, someone tries to tell me
V> it must be my system doing this to their messages....
I tried that once, only to find that their client rendered the HTML and they
saw, at the foot of my "look at the junk generated when you use those misbe-
gotten anti-features instead of stating your post," all their pretty fonts
and colors just as they intended them, and they didn't get what I was com-
plaining about. So when I have to do that, first I globally replace all
their left-side angle brackets with left braces. Then they get HTML code and
see what it really looks like, and how much bulk there is, and how their text
is lost amid it.
When I wrote,
T> A month or two ago a virus turned up (I think it was Babylon95?) that
T> infects .hlp files. Ever since then McAfee has recommended scanning all
T> files, not just those named with the traditional extensions for executable
T> code.
Chuq responded,
V> and don't forget those wonderful macro worms in word and excel files....
And Eileen -- whose last initial I don't know, so I'll use the first letter
of her logname -- asked,
d> Can't postscript files also contain executable code that could do things
d> like overwrite files, etc?
McAfee had already been including those files' extensions in the default list
of filetypes for short scans. It was only when they found a virus that in-
fects .hlp files that they decided to advise that short scans are not a good
idea and that one should always scan all files. However, Jonathan Nash wrote
to me off-list that a virus that infects .hlp files had been found some time
ago, and that McAfee should have started making that recommendation back then.
