Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WannaCry Ransomware

Olaf, You forgot to comment on the real reason for this unending and weekly update for 10 years. These OSs have more holes than Swiss cheese and spying runs wild. Deliberate holes or not they should pay for us to use these tools. But when you say that this product is bad "to spare a few cents

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WannaCry Ransomware

Peter H wrote: > Why is noone doing something effective against SPAM ? Are you kidding? Do you know what was the AVERAGE DAILY SPAM VOLUME FOR APRIL 2017 ? 394.39 BILLION PER DAY. May 10 2017: Total Email Volume: 505.28 Spam Volume: 430.2 - 85% are spam Be careful what you wish for! Have you

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WannaCry Ransomware

t; > DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the > named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, > copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely > upon the information contained in it. > Please n

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [cooperation-wg] WannaCry Ransomware

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 2:08 PM, peter h wrote: > The main route of attack is by SPAM. > > Why is noone doing something effective against SPAM ? > > To date there has been no evidence that email was the vector. https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/864175313319809027

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [cooperation-wg] WannaCry Ransomware

On 15/05/17, 6:38 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of peter h" wrote: >The main route of attack is by SPAM. >Why is noone doing something effective against SPAM ? I thought the fine people here weren’t the internet police? :)

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [cooperation-wg] WannaCry Ransomware

The main route of attack is by SPAM. Why is noone doing something effective against SPAM ? On Monday 15 May 2017 13.59, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Thanks Richard for distributing this. > > However I am sure everybody else on this list had already checked their > favourite sources of information