On 11:02 PM 5/18/01, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
>On Fri, 18 May 2001, Tim Pierce wrote:
>> We spent years trying to educate people not to believe "virus
>> warnings" that they got in e-mail anyway, since 99% of the time
>> they're the Budweiser Frogs hoax. Warnings about a *real* virus
>> will come to them through other channels.
>
>That used to be true.
>
>But ISPs actually don't tell their users anything about it. Most home
>users find out about them from those warnings.
So what?
What value is there in learning about these viruses through this method
(being sent a warning from a friend or chat list)?
Either people practice "safe email" or they don't. If they don't, sooner
or later they are going to get a virus email (and open it) *before* they
get a warning, and then get infected. Sending out warnings gives people a
false sense of security, that if they just don't open the messages they
have been warned about all will be well. As we all know, nothing could be
further from the truth.
I ban ALL virus warnings. Anyone who persists in sending virus warnings to
my mailing lists will get banned. If someone wants to know about the
latest viruses, they need to be proactive and visit the virus warning
websites, or subscribe to an announcement list that sends them official
warnings. Expecting to receive an emailed warning in an appropriate time
frame from friends or a mailing list is just stupid.
jc
