RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
While it indeed may be more sensible for the ISP to maintain a virus checking operation on all messages coming into and going out of their ISP, your ISP also, evidently, seems to work under the assumption that redundancy insures that the message will get through and sends out multiple copies of your posts. :-) I received several copies of the post below. That wasn't my ISP. It was due to a fumble on my part (and Outlook). I tried to stop the message going, but it'd already gone. Then it got sent again. PEBCAK Mark
RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
Well, you're playing an online form of Russian Roulette then. Some of the recent rash of viruses attach themselves to web pages. Click on the right link, and you're hit! And, you probably won't know about it until for some time. Unless of course, the virus trashes your system. If you have a decent firewall set up, and the right security settings on your browser, it won't happen. And the 'auto-executing' viruses attached to HTML emails aren't an issue, as I've patched Outlook and have disabled the MS Script Host (which is the root of most of these problems). I also now run the Outlook add-in which automatically converts *all* HTML mails to plain text before I read them. Lastly, I have a regular and incremental backup system in place, which means that if the very worst happened (unlikely as it is) I can completely rebuild my laptop in about an hour. :-) The fact of the matter is that with an up-to-date virus scanner running on ingoing and outgoing mail, and the script host disabled, there is nothing that any current AV software can do to provide any more protection than I already have. Judicious checking of attachment sources before opening them, and a little care whilst surfing means there is a negligible risk. Since 99% of all viruses only propogate as a direct result of dumb users opening unsolicited viruses, I would categorise myself in the 'low-risk' zone. ;-) Mark
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
Well, you're playing an online form of Russian Roulette then. Some of the recent rash of viruses attach themselves to web pages. Click on the right link, and you're hit! And, you probably won't know about it until for some time. Unless of course, the virus trashes your system. If you have a decent firewall set up, and the right security settings on your browser, it won't happen. And the 'auto-executing' viruses attached to HTML emails aren't an issue, as I've patched Outlook and have disabled the MS Script Host (which is the root of most of these problems). I also now run the Outlook add-in which automatically converts *all* HTML mails to plain text before I read them. In your previous message, you mentioned that since your ISP virus checks their mail server, it means you cannot receive a virus. I merely pointed out that viruses propagate by means other than email. Even though a firewall and high security settings on your browser can greatly reduce the risk, hackers are frequently discovering and exploiting security holes in the OS, browser, and email clients. With the precautions you've taken, you're in a much lower risk category than the average user, but I don't think that anyone is totally immune.
RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
I understanbd completely and was just pulling your leg. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Otway Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus While it indeed may be more sensible for the ISP to maintain a virus checking operation on all messages coming into and going out of their ISP, your ISP also, evidently, seems to work under the assumption that redundancy insures that the message will get through and sends out multiple copies of your posts. :-) I received several copies of the post below. That wasn't my ISP. It was due to a fumble on my part (and Outlook). I tried to stop the message going, but it'd already gone. Then it got sent again. PEBCAK Mark
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
I'm a Freeserve user, yet I've had these messages. I spotted the offending virus-containing message as dodgy and deleted it immediately on arrival. Regards, Alan T - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 1:13 AM Subject: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus I've noticed several e-mails about viruses on this e-mail list non of which I seem to have received. On further investigation I have discovered that my service provider Freeserve (cheap almost cheerful) will not allow dodgy attachments such as *.exe or *.vbs they just bounce. Harmless files such as jpg can be attached as normal. They do not advertise this point probably for fear of a breach of security but the policy clearly exists. eg. This is what happens if you attach something.vbs : A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. The following address(es) failed: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This message has been rejected because it has an apparently executable attachment SM1.VBS This is a virus prevention measure. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. This strikes me as rather sensible all round. It's not in the interests of the users or service providers to have viruses generating large volumes of traffic, using zip tends to make users think twice about opening the file and will at least prevent automatic propagation. Much as I am against the idea of a net nanny this seems to be a very sensible idea - forcing the use of a zip file will usually reduce the bandwidth requirement too. Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers that they should impliment a similar scheme. Steve
RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers that they should impliment a similar scheme. The ISP that hosts my website and provides my mail has a virus-checker running on the pop and smtp servers. This means that I *cannot* receive a virus, and if I accidently catch one it can't be sent either. He keeps the virus-checker totally up to date. That's much more sensible than just blocking certain types of attachments. I don't run any anti-virus software, and in 6 years of regular internet use I've never had a virus. Not once. Mark
RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers that they should impliment a similar scheme. The ISP that hosts my website and provides my mail has a virus-checker running on the pop and smtp servers. This means that I *cannot* receive a virus, and if I accidently catch one it can't be sent either. He keeps the virus-checker totally up to date. That's much more sensible than just blocking certain types of attachments. I don't run any anti-virus software, and in 6 years of regular internet use I've never had a virus. Not once. Mark http://www.otway.com
RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
While it indeed may be more sensible for the ISP to maintain a virus checking operation on all messages coming into and going out of their ISP, your ISP also, evidently, seems to work under the assumption that redundancy insures that the message will get through and sends out multiple copies of your posts. :-) I received several copies of the post below. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Otway Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers that they should impliment a similar scheme. The ISP that hosts my website and provides my mail has a virus-checker running on the pop and smtp servers. This means that I *cannot* receive a virus, and if I accidently catch one it can't be sent either. He keeps the virus-checker totally up to date. That's much more sensible than just blocking certain types of attachments. I don't run any anti-virus software, and in 6 years of regular internet use I've never had a virus. Not once. Mark http://www.otway.com
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers that they should impliment a similar scheme. The ISP that hosts my website and provides my mail has a virus-checker running on the pop and smtp servers. This means that I *cannot* receive a virus, and if I accidently catch one it can't be sent either. He keeps the virus-checker totally up to date. That's much more sensible than just blocking certain types of attachments. I don't run any anti-virus software, and in 6 years of regular internet use I've never had a virus. Not once. Well, you're playing an online form of Russian Roulette then. Some of the recent rash of viruses attach themselves to web pages. Click on the right link, and you're hit! And, you probably won't know about it until for some time. Unless of course, the virus trashes your system.
filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
I've noticed several e-mails about viruses on this e-mail list non of which I seem to have received. On further investigation I have discovered that my service provider Freeserve (cheap almost cheerful) will not allow dodgy attachments such as *.exe or *.vbs they just bounce. Harmless files such as jpg can be attached as normal. They do not advertise this point probably for fear of a breach of security but the policy clearly exists. eg. This is what happens if you attach something.vbs : A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. The following address(es) failed: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This message has been rejected because it has an apparently executable attachment SM1.VBS This is a virus prevention measure. If you meant to send this file then please package it up as a zip file and resend it. This strikes me as rather sensible all round. It's not in the interests of the users or service providers to have viruses generating large volumes of traffic, using zip tends to make users think twice about opening the file and will at least prevent automatic propagation. Much as I am against the idea of a net nanny this seems to be a very sensible idea - forcing the use of a zip file will usually reduce the bandwidth requirement too. Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers that they should impliment a similar scheme. Steve
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
[bouncing of possibly infected attachments] Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers that they should impliment a similar scheme. At some point, Microsoft will probably kick up a stink. I wish they'd never allowed VBS or any sort of scripting in email! Frankly there ought to be a class action against Microsoft for implementing such a pathetic security model. Security? What security! I have a PC that runs at least 30% slower than it could all because of Microsoft security. It's in the best interests of the ISPs to implement some sort of mail scanning, because eliminating viruses will reduce the likelihood of network storms resulting from virus propagation. In other words - getting rid of viruses at the server would help the internet be faster and more convenient. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
