On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 22:27, Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: Sean Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 11:13:43 -0400
>
>. . .
>
>I also digitally sign my emails, which I wish more people took advantage
>of. I don't know of a virus yet that can fake a gpg signature . .
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Rogers wrote:
|From: Sean Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 11:13:43 -0400
|
|. . .
|
|I also digitally sign my emails, which I wish more people took
advantage
|of. I don't know of a virus yet that can fake a
From: Sean Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 11:13:43 -0400
. . .
I also digitally sign my emails, which I wish more people took advantage
of. I don't know of a virus yet that can fake a gpg signature . . .
The virus wouldn't have to fake it. There is nothing tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|
|>And the PGP signature does not help much, because
|>I do not have an easy way to validate that this is good.
|
|
| It's actually a gpg signature, but they are approximately equivalent
| from a basic usage standpoint. Does Outlook have any support f
Sean Quinlan wrote:
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 14:26, Dan Sugalski wrote:
having several attachments. (Eudora, however, automatically inlines
any plain text attachments, so I don't have to explicitly jump
through hoops--they're jumped through for me :)
Thunderbird does that, too.
Several attachments?
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 02:26:14PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> (Eudora, however, automatically inlines
> any plain text attachments, so I don't have to explicitly jump
> through hoops--they're jumped through for me :)
I think the difference between your setup and Steve's is
how the client handl
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 14:26, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 2:12 PM -0400 5/6/04, Richard Morse wrote:
> >Mail (on Mac OS X) also shows Mr. Quinlan's messages
Mr. Quinlan?!? =P
> as an odd
> >attachment (which I never read, because I am very lazy). Oddly, the
> >next message in this thread is from
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 14:03, Tolkin, Steve wrote:
> I have exactly the same symptoms as Philipp Hanes
> (needing to open two layers before reaching the actual mail from Sean
> Quinlan)
Again, I'm sorry this is the case in your situation. And please don't
take this personally, but I'd prefer to do
At 2:12 PM -0400 5/6/04, Richard Morse wrote:
On 06 May 2004, at 12:28 PM, John Saylor wrote:
hi
( 04.05.06 11:46 -0400 ) Philipp Hanes:
I use MS Outlook 2000 (not much choice at the office).
that's a big problem. outlook is the most massively broken piece of
software released by microsoft [and *th
On 06 May 2004, at 12:28 PM, John Saylor wrote:
hi
( 04.05.06 11:46 -0400 ) Philipp Hanes:
I use MS Outlook 2000 (not much choice at the office).
that's a big problem. outlook is the most massively broken piece of
software released by microsoft [and *that's* saying something]. it's
like complaining
> > Long code examples are completely reasonable to have as
> attachments, to me.
> >
> > Of course, if someone can help me tweak Outlook to make these nested
> > messages less of a pain to read, I'd be quite grateful too :-)
> >
> >
> &
John Saylor wrote:
hi
( 04.05.06 11:46 -0400 ) Philipp Hanes:
I use MS Outlook 2000 (not much choice at the office).
that's a big problem. outlook is the most massively broken piece of
you've got to have another choice. you can pop it off of an exchange
server and use thunderbird.
Some admins refu
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Sean Quinlan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 11:14 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [Boston.pm] list viruses
> >
> >
> > ___
> &g
hi
( 04.05.06 11:46 -0400 ) Philipp Hanes:
> I use MS Outlook 2000 (not much choice at the office).
that's a big problem. outlook is the most massively broken piece of
software released by microsoft [and *that's* saying something]. it's
like complaining that your scooter won't move very fast in a
ompletely reasonable to have as attachments, to me.
Of course, if someone can help me tweak Outlook to make these nested
messages less of a pain to read, I'd be quite grateful too :-)
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Quinlan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, Ma
Wow, a debate! ;-}
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 10:36, Tolkin, Steve wrote:
> I almost never open an attachment,
> unless it comes from a known and trusted source,
> and I am expecting an attachment.
> This is an antivirus measure.
I agree in the general concept of hesitating. However, reading the email
Steve Tolkin writes:
> However a better approach, if viable, is converting the attachment
> to plain text and pasting it inline. Ideally this would
> preserve the fact that it once was an attached file, and it
> also the file's name.
> This should work with all non-binary files,
> [...]
I secon
, its subsidiaries or affiliates.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ronald J Kimball [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:55 PM
> To: Chris Devers
> Cc: Boston Perl Mongers
> Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] list viruses
>
>
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:2
hi
( 04.05.05 21:25 -0400 ) Chris Devers:
> Boston.pm's mail is served by Mailman, right? Does Mailman have a way to
> filter [presumably unsubscribed] incoming mail by network?
yes [newer versions].
--
\js "don't panic"
___
Boston-pm mailing lis
Thanks guys!
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 21:54, Ronald J Kimball wrote:
> I have already turned on content filtering for the list. This will remove
> unwanted attachments, but still sends the remainder of the message
> through. (This is why the second message was missing its payload.) If
> that's not
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:25:08PM -0400, Chris Devers wrote:
> Okay, so two viruses have made it to the list today. In both cases, it
> looks like the mail came from Verizon customers:
>
> Received: from pm.org (pool-141-154-212-242.bos.east.verizon.net
> [141.154.212.242])
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
