On 19 May 2001, at 22:15, Tim Pierce wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:48:44AM -0400, Nick Simicich wrote:
> >
> > There are no legit virus notifications, except the ones that come from
> > virus companies.
>
> That's kind of the attitude I'm taking these days. If I thought
> that we could instruct the users how to tell a warning of a real
> virus from a bogus rumor, then we would pursue that.
But *what* are you _warning_ them about? The implication of making
warnings like this *at*all* is that it is OK to open random attachments
and that you're covered --- you've got this early-warning-system that'll
let you know if the Britney Spears sex video is *really* an .mpg or is
actually a virus, so if you haven't heard anything to the contrary, it is
OK-to-click...
Why not just send them a constant stream of "there are still zillions of
email viruses afoot, don't open attachments"? -- that's both closer to
the truth, safer, and a better 'email ecology' for them than "HEY, watch
out for a message that says click here if you want to get-rich-quick".
> ... I just don't
> think that we're capable of that kind of education (or if it's even
> possible).
See, that's where we differ: you think that the 'education' is in
teaching folk to figure out which 'warning's to trust. I think that the
necessary 'education' is to hammer into their thick skulls "DONT OPEN
ATTACHMENTS". There hasn't been a virus 'warning' in a long time [since
bubbleboy/KAK] that consisted of *anything* more than that, but rather
than have the education be "learn how to fish", you/we/I persist in "hey,
don't eat _that_ fish".
> .. Any warnings
> you get in e-mail should at least be cross-checked against a couple
> of other sources, if you are tempted to believe it at all.
When was the last time you got a 'warning' from an 'official source' or
anyplace else that told you ANYTHING useful? [assuming that _you_ have
gotten the clue that opening attachments is a bad thing]. About the only
thing such warnings do for me is warn me that I'm about to get deluged by
pleas-for-help from clueless users who have, yet *again*, shot themselves
in their collective feet.
I wonder if the folks at places like gov't offices and MS and IBM and
such are the least bit embarrassed about the AnnaK trojan -- it isn't
just that they got bit by a trojan, and isn't just that they demonstrated
that the clue-train *still* hasn't stopped at their station... but that
they were messing around with that sort of stuff on the old company
computers on company time. [I mean, what do you say to your boss: "How
was I to know that the nude pictures of Anna K were actually a trojan?"
[with the implication, I guess, that all the *other* nude-celebrity and
lord-knows-what stuff that you regularly open weren't trojans so you'd
gotten complacent???.]]
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
