Not again !!!
Is there anyway of filtering out attachments on this list? Theses bloody viruses are becoming a pain.. Regards Kevin
Re: Not again !!!
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 14:36, barryc wrote: From: Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Remember Kevin, its only the winderz people it bothers. > >Not true. >Windows users are the only ones with anything to fear from these > messages. It bothers (read: annoys) most of us. > >NOTE: For the purpose of this correspondance, "most" is defined as > 'Some number of amanda-users subscribers, greater than or equal to > two.' The definition of bother is relative I guess. Well, with the delete button only centimeters away, its not a bother to me. Now IF I was running winderz (I do not have a copy on the property) and got myself a viri, then that would 'bother' me. -- Cheers, Gene AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 320M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512M 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: Not again !!!
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 à 02:23:30PM -0500, Rebecca Pakish Crum wrote: > those who are bothered to be unprepared. Get a spam server...deal with > it, move on. Or maybe those complaining would like to contribute and > maintain a spam/virus server for the list. This is the 4th or 5th time > this year this subject has gone on for far too long. Amanda is free, the > knowledge everyone gains and contributes her is free, if the price is to > be 'bothered' with extra emails, then pay for some other backup utility > and you won't be bothered again. Excuse me but I don't really understand where is the *need* of accepting attachements in a mailing list read by amanda sysadmins, people that use to deal with **TEXT** config files all day long ? There is **absolutly** no need to accept the attachements. If anyone would ever need a binary or a picture of my dog, I would post an URL. So simple ! That would avoid : - the viruses - the too many automatic answers coming from antivirus software - the network load - the long and repeating threads -- Nicolas Ecarnot
Re: Not again !!!
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Rebecca Pakish Crum wrote: ---cut--- > It amazes me how often these two running arguments are repeatedly > debated...using localhost and spam to the amanda list. For the love of > pete...how many sys admins does it take to beat the dead horse? (I > suppose I am now guilty as well by even responding to the tirades) Q: How many IBM CPUs does it take to do a logical right shift? A: 33: 1 to hold the bits and 32 to push the register. Q: How many IBM CPUs does it take to execute a job? A: Four: three to hold it down, and one to pour Drano down its throat and then rip its head off. (Thanks to Harlan Ellison for the lovely Drano imagery! :) > Maybe there needs to be something addressed to the newbie's when they > register with amanda.org as a part of the welcome email that says "You > are responsible for your own network...the list is open to everyone and > everything, please don't complain about spam, viruses, etc." I find > those who are bothered to be unprepared. Get a spam server...deal with > it, move on. Or maybe those complaining would like to contribute and > maintain a spam/virus server for the list. This is the 4th or 5th time > this year this subject has gone on for far too long. Amanda is free, the > knowledge everyone gains and contributes her is free, if the price is to > be 'bothered' with extra emails, then pay for some other backup utility > and you won't be bothered again. Amen. On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:39:17PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote: ---cut--- > Yes, agreed; but, are the plethora of insipid and specious virus-found > alarms really necessary (read: on-topic) on this -- or any -- mailing list? No. --Steve Lane /"\ Doudna Lab \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign U. C. BerkeleyX Against HTML Email / \
Re: Not again !!!
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:39:17PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote: > > Yes, agreed; but, are the plethora of insipid and specious virus-found > alarms really necessary (read: on-topic) on this -- or any -- mailing list? Yes, absolutely. Otherwise I would not know a virus had been posted :)) -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: Not again !!!
Also sprach Jon LaBadie (Wed 06 Aug 02003 at 04:59:41PM -0400): > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:39:17PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote: > > > > Yes, agreed; but, are the plethora of insipid and specious virus-found > > alarms really necessary (read: on-topic) on this -- or any -- mailing list? > > Yes, absolutely. > > Otherwise I would not know a virus had been posted > >:)) O, yeah, I dint think o dat . . . -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 877.596.8237 - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . -- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Not again !!!
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 11:06, Kevin Passey wrote: >Is there anyway of filtering out attachments on this list? > >Theses bloody viruses are becoming a pain.. > >Regards > >Kevin Remember Kevin, its only the winderz people it bothers. -- Cheers, Gene AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 320M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512M 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: Not again !!!
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:19:15AM +0200, Nicolas Ecarnot wrote: > There is **absolutly** no need to accept the attachements. > If anyone would ever need a binary or a picture of my dog, I would post > an URL. So simple ! How about source patches? If you include them in-line, instead of attaching them, their whitespace can get mangled (tabs turned into spaces, lines broken in the middle), and that'll keep them from applying cleanly. Admittedly, this might be more an issue over on amanda-hackers (in fact I learned about this from one-time Amanda maintainer Alexandre Oliva, who refused to accept patches *unless* they were sent as attachments). -- | | /\ |-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | / When I came back around from the dark side, there in front of me would be the landing area where the crew was, and the Earth, all in the view of my window. I couldn't help but think that there in front of me was all of humanity, except me. - Michael Collins, Apollo 11 Command Module Pilot
RE: Not again !!!
> On Wednesday 06 August 2003 14:36, barryc wrote: > From: Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>Remember Kevin, its only the winderz people it bothers. > > > >Not true. > >Windows users are the only ones with anything to fear from these > >messages. It bothers (read: annoys) most of us. > > > >NOTE: For the purpose of this correspondance, "most" is defined as > >'Some number of amanda-users subscribers, greater than or equal to > >two.' > > The definition of bother is relative I guess. > > Well, with the delete button only centimeters away, its not a bother > to me. Now IF I was running winderz (I do not have a copy on the > property) and got myself a viri, then that would 'bother' me. It amazes me how often these two running arguments are repeatedly debated...using localhost and spam to the amanda list. For the love of pete...how many sys admins does it take to beat the dead horse? (I suppose I am now guilty as well by even responding to the tirades) Maybe there needs to be something addressed to the newbie's when they register with amanda.org as a part of the welcome email that says "You are responsible for your own network...the list is open to everyone and everything, please don't complain about spam, viruses, etc." I find those who are bothered to be unprepared. Get a spam server...deal with it, move on. Or maybe those complaining would like to contribute and maintain a spam/virus server for the list. This is the 4th or 5th time this year this subject has gone on for far too long. Amanda is free, the knowledge everyone gains and contributes her is free, if the price is to be 'bothered' with extra emails, then pay for some other backup utility and you won't be bothered again.
Re: Not again !!!
>From: Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Remember Kevin, its only the winderz people it bothers. > Not true. Windows users are the only ones with anything to fear from these messages. It bothers (read: annoys) most of us. NOTE: For the purpose of this correspondance, "most" is defined as 'Some number of amanda-users subscribers, greater than or equal to two.'
Re: Not again !!!
Also sprach Rebecca Pakish Crum (Wed 06 Aug 02003 at 02:23:30PM -0500): > > It amazes me how often these two running arguments are repeatedly > debated...using localhost and spam to the amanda list. For the love of > pete...how many sys admins does it take to beat the dead horse? (I > suppose I am now guilty as well by even responding to the tirades) > > Maybe there needs to be something addressed to the newbie's when they > register with amanda.org as a part of the welcome email that says "You > are responsible for your own network...the list is open to everyone and > everything, please don't complain about spam, viruses, etc." I find > those who are bothered to be unprepared. Get a spam server...deal with > it, move on. Or maybe those complaining would like to contribute and > maintain a spam/virus server for the list. This is the 4th or 5th time > this year this subject has gone on for far too long. Amanda is free, the > knowledge everyone gains and contributes her is free, if the price is to > be 'bothered' with extra emails, then pay for some other backup utility > and you won't be bothered again. Yes, agreed; but, are the plethora of insipid and specious virus-found alarms really necessary (read: on-topic) on this -- or any -- mailing list? -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 877.596.8237 - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . -- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
