ECTED]
Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
At 01:38 PM 5/12/00 -0400, Jeremy wrote:
>Can you plase pleaes stop this Virus Thread.
This thread _is_ the virus...
At 01:38 PM 5/12/00 -0400, Jeremy wrote:
>Can you plase pleaes stop this Virus Thread.
This thread _is_ the virus...
> On Fri, 12 May 2000 13:38:43 EDT, Jeremy said:
> > Can you plase pleaes stop this Virus Thread.
> Actually, there *ARE* important issues here.
> Would the IESG support the creation of a WG to discuss these, with the
> charter of producing a BCP documenting what *should* be done to minimize
> t
> All of that can be done in pure ASCII.
... that is, if you speak english. You can definitely write the way of
Shakespeare, but you have a tiny problem writing the way of Molière, let
alone Confucius. Then, there are things that are hard to do in writing,
however able is your prose. Maps and p
this is a good idea !! maybe the security wg could look
into this. Jeff, Marcus , any comments ??
/pd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 2:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
On Fri, 12 May 2000 13:38:43
On Fri, 12 May 2000 13:38:43 EDT, Jeremy said:
> Can you plase pleaes stop this Virus Thread.
Actually, there *ARE* important issues here.
Would the IESG support the creation of a WG to discuss these, with the
charter of producing a BCP documenting what *should* be done to minimize
these risks i
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> As as been pointed out repeatedly and as demonstrated with a concrete
> example Saturday morning, attached HTML can be a significant security
> problem. I doubt that (probably porn) HTML spam was much of a security
> threat, but if you think about it
ent: Friday, May 12, 2000 5:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
Castro, Edison M. (PCA) writes:
> WE HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS
Yeah, right ... when it comes to shouting, all this "blame the victim"
has gone too far.
I have users
Can you plase pleaes stop this Virus Thread.
-jeremy
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > From: chris d koeberle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > ...
> > Indeed, I don't think any of the people who are complaining about the
> > "HTML in e-mail" issues would complain about someone sending
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 12:04:08PM -0400, chris d koeberle wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Incidentally, this is exactly the same issue as "attach a file to an e-mail"
> > versus "send the recipient a note, copy the file to a ftp/web server, wait
> > for him to retrieve i
> From: chris d koeberle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> Indeed, I don't think any of the people who are complaining about the
> "HTML in e-mail" issues would complain about someone sending an e-mail
> with an HTML file as an attachment. At least, not as I understand their
> arguments against it.
J
Castro, Edison M. (PCA) writes:
> WE HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS
Yeah, right ... when it comes to shouting, all this "blame the victim"
has gone too far.
I have users who are *illiterate*. They can click, but they can't
read. They can click on little pictures an
On Fri, 12 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Incidentally, this is exactly the same issue as "attach a file to an e-mail"
> versus "send the recipient a note, copy the file to a ftp/web server, wait
> for him to retrieve it, and then remember to clean it up afterwards".
Only if the e-mail clien
On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 08:36:52PM +0200, Jacob Palme wrote:
> At 10.11 -0600 0-05-11, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > Once you restrict
> > HTML based email enough to be safe, why bother with anything more than
> > text and perhaps simple pictures?
> What is wrong with that. I use HTML-based e-mail m
On Fri, 12 May 2000 09:33:02 CDT, John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> John Stracke wrote:
> > Well, there's basic formatting:
> [...]
> > And even simple links (never mind forms, applets, etc.) are great for,
> > say, workflow applications. When I worked for Netscape, HR made great
> > use
John Stracke wrote:
> Well, there's basic formatting:
[...]
> And even simple links (never mind forms, applets, etc.) are great for,
> say, workflow applications. When I worked for Netscape, HR made great
> use of HTML mail in the internal network. When I wanted to take some
Email is not the we
. (PCA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 08:45
> To: 'Doug Sauder'; Castro, Edison M. (PCA); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
>
>
> Let's see if this reasoning holds water. Imagine your favorite OS, suppose
> that I send you
>
0 5:55 PM
To: Castro, Edison M. (PCA); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
> -Original Message-
> From: Castro, Edison M. (PCA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> That is exactly the same way that all Windows virus work. As a Windows
> user (as well as other OSes), I
On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 06:48:37PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
[...]
> All of that can be done in pure ASCII.
> You don't have to be Shakespear to communicate with the written word
> without more punctuation than existed in 1960. There was no global plague
> in 1970 that damage all
> From: John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --95872F20B70C837D61220742
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> > What good is HTML based email if it cannot run
> > scripts or even contain links to other HTML content?
> -Original Message-
> From: Castro, Edison M. (PCA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> That is exactly the same way that all Windows virus work. As a Windows
> user (as well as other OSes), I can say that people have to be
> responsible
> for their actions. Whenever you receive any Email
>From Steven M. Bellovin's message Thu, 11 May 2000 07:40:26 -0400:
}
}In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Einar Stefferud writes:
}
[snip]...
}
}>Seems to me that this beloved "feature" (giving root privs to random
}>EMail messages) should (by now) now be fully discredited, and should
}>be destined f
ursday, May 11, 2000 3:32 PM
To: Scot Mc Pherson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
On Thu, 11 May 2000 15:04:48 EDT, Scot Mc Pherson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The necessity to send e-mail in html is NOT. Regardless of whether a list
> or commerce wishes to adver
Vernon Schryver wrote:
What good is HTML based email if it cannot run
scripts or even contain links to other HTML content?
Well, there's basic formatting:
Simple font variations (italics, bold, color, font) are an easy way to
add a bit of expressiveness to your text.
Everybody says that the
On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 08:36:52PM +0200, Jacob Palme wrote:
> At 10.11 -0600 0-05-11, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > Once you restrict
> > HTML based email enough to be safe, why bother with anything more than
> > text and perhaps simple pictures?
> What is wrong with that. I use HTML-based e-mail m
On Thu, 11 May 2000 15:04:48 EDT, Scot Mc Pherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The necessity to send e-mail in html is NOT. Regardless of whether a list
> or commerce wishes to advertise through e-mail, there are already avenues
> for distributing material to demographically selected individ
al Message-
From: Lillian Komlossy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 2:29 PM
To: 'Scot Mc Pherson'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
Scot,
ITA we do not need the HTML email for our everyday use.
HTML based email is mainly used by the Email-
At 10.11 -0600 0-05-11, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> Once you restrict
> HTML based email enough to be safe, why bother with anything more than
> text and perhaps simple pictures?
What is wrong with that. I use HTML-based e-mail mostly to
inluce pictures in my messages.
A very useful way of using HT
11, 2000 1:59 PM
To: 'Lillian Komlossy'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
Lillian,
I am not so sure I totally agree. Why exactly do we need HTML based
e-mail...Is it really necessary? E-mail is a service for transmitting a
written message, and written messages cert
On Thu, 11 May 2000 13:59:19 EDT, Scot Mc Pherson said:
> There is no practical need for html e-mail. It like saying I want to use a
> tractor trailer to commute to work everyday, but it needs to consume only as
> much gas as an eco car, and go as fast a Ferrari.
If the computer industry ad
ast a Ferrari.
Scot
-Original Message-
From: Lillian Komlossy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:13 AM
To: 'Scot Mc Pherson'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
Scot,
While what you say is true - meaning an all-text restriction o
Lillian Komlossy wrote:
> We
> have to find a way to
> be able to use html based email but restrict it from - say running scripts,
> executing anything,
> writing cookies, issuing queries, etc...
So turn off JavaScript for mail messages.
--
/=
> From: Lillian Komlossy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While what you say is true - meaning an all-text restriction on your email
> browser will prevent
> "dangerous goods" to be downloaded - it also takes away functionality. We
> have to find a way to
> be able to use html based email but restrict it fr
imarketingnews.com
(212) 925-7300 ext. 232
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Scot Mc Pherson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 10:07 AM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Castro, Edison M. (PCA)'
>>Cc: 'Steven M. Bellovin';
--Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:45 AM
> To: Castro, Edison M. (PCA)
> Cc: 'Steven M. Bellovin'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Brant Knudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
>
> On
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 11 06:36:01 2000
> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> ...
> > Note the two crucial points -- it ran with the user's permissions, and
> > it was explicitly run by the user, rather than by any automatic
> > mechanism.
> From: "Castro, Edison M
100% text
Scot
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:45 AM
To: Castro, Edison M. (PCA)
Cc: 'Steven M. Bellovin'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Brant Knudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
On Thu, 11 May 2000 08
On Thu, 11 May 2000 08:24:11 EDT, "Castro, Edison M. (PCA)" said:
> That is exactly the same way that all Windows virus work. As a Windows
> user (as well as other OSes), I can say that people have to be responsible
> for their actions. Whenever you receive any Email attachment, the only way
>
Message-
From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Brant Knudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Einar Stefferud writes:
>
>The first of these "worm/virus/a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Einar Stefferud writes:
>
>The first of these "worm/virus/addressbookmailers" was the IBM PROFS
>"Chrismas Card" caper that occurred some time in the early 1990's,
>long before MS willfully adopted the design.
It was in December, 1987.
>
>Seems to me that this bel
The pattern is longer than you remember;-)...
>From Brant's message Sat, 06 May 2000 00:38:29 +:
}
}I think I'm starting to see a pattern emerging in email viruses.
}
}Melissa: Uses script to read user's address book to get the email
}addresses of new victims.
}ILOVEYOU: Uses script to read
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I don't see how, as long as the software manufacturers ship the software
> > with legal disclaimers, e.g. "We are not responsible for damages ..."
>
> sooner or later that phrase will be recognized as less valuable
> than bovine feces.
(In the U.S.) It
Hello,
At 17:28 04/05/00 -0400, Lillian Komlossy wrote:
>Let's not make it political. We've all been attacked, it is >pointless..
The people who want to do citizens security a political issue probably are
the same comunist reaccionary wich disagree with the future Army
privatization, the ones wic
At 11.07 -0800 0-05-07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, I was there, and I question the validity of your assessment of what was
> going on. While it is true that there was a clear concensus opposed to adding
> wiretapping facilities in the RAVEN sense, it was by no means 95-98 percent.
Perhaps I
> From: "Michael B. Bellopede" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
> Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:27:14 -0400
>
> It should be pretty obvious that the only reason that viruses are so
> prolific on MS platforms, is that so many people are using them.
small circle of professionals and engineers.
Michael B. Bellopede
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Randall Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 8:05 PM
To: Michael H. Warfield
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Scot Mc Pherson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VIRUS
From: Jacob Palme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 17:55:19 +0200
Jacob,
Sorry for stepping slightly out of the topic you are discussing,
> At 11.17 -0400 0-05-07, Keith Moore wrote:
> > in my mind the people most responsible for the viruse
TECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 4:18 PM
To: 'A James Lewis'; 'Lillian Komlossy'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
Office for Unix, Now there's a terrifying thought
(please don't contaminate the purity of my unix system with that filthy
win
> > 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
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 h
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 folks
> However, in the more general case, if one takes the position
> that, if I build a dangerous-but-useful tool and someone misuses
> it, I should be held responsible, we are going to end up with
> rules against a lot of very useful stuff including, in extreme
> cases, many open source environments.
> > 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
> 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
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
--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,
At 11.17 -0400 0-05-07, Keith Moore 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.
That is certainly one factor of importance. But even the
best systems can be co
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
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 hi
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
Michael:
I could not agree more, we have a few (possibly .. 3) virus that have
infect *nix systems. Even more telling, look at how linux systems
have NOT been infected or bothered much. I find this interesting
since the code - bugs, wart, and any
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brant Knudson writes:
>
>I think I'm starting to see a pattern emerging in email viruses.
>
>Melissa: Uses script to read user's address book to get the email
>addresses of new victims.
>ILOVEYOU: Uses script to read user's address book to get the email
>addresses
I think I'm starting to see a pattern emerging in email viruses.
Melissa: Uses script to read user's address book to get the email
addresses of new victims.
ILOVEYOU: Uses script to read user's address book to get the email
addresses of new victims.
What method do you think the next email viru
Michael:
I could not agree more, we have a few (possibly .. 3) virus that have
infect *nix systems. Even more telling, look at how linux systems
have NOT been infected or bothered much. I find this interesting
since the code - bugs, wart, and any holes are available to any
who want to look at it.
On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 11:13:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 04 May 2000 11:11:50 EDT, Scot Mc Pherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > In fact to back up your statement, there are exactly 3 virii that infect
> > UNIX based systems.
> Hmm.. the Morris worm of 1988. What are the oth
Hmm.. the Morris worm of 1988. What are the other 2?
Piers Dick Lauder and Bob Kummerfeld implemented Mail/sendfile *@*
(yes, wildcards both sides of the user@host name form) in ACSnet prior
to this. It was designed to be used amongst other things, to do s/w updates
to all ACSnet subscri
On Thu, 04 May 2000 11:11:50 EDT, Scot Mc Pherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In fact to back up your statement, there are exactly 3 virii that infect
> UNIX based systems.
Hmm.. the Morris worm of 1988. What are the other 2?
Hmm.. if you count the 2 self-reproducing sample programs that
came
On Thu, 04 May 2000 20:39:43 EDT, Keith Moore said:
> 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.
Not if th
> no class action
perhaps that's not the appropriate mechanism, or perhaps that remedy isn't
available to a large number of those affected.
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
"noone ever got fired for buying ibm"
this was ironic coz ibm was expensive, but worked
someone should get fired for buying someone elses prodiucts
irony
no class action
just reality checkpoint time...
for a systemic view,
some stuff is engineered better than other stuff - see mark handl
y 04, 2000 4:18 PM
To: 'A James Lewis'; 'Lillian Komlossy'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
Office for Unix, Now there's a terrifying thought
(please don't contaminate the purity of my unix system with that filthy
windows software)
Jim
Jim Du
> So if the users would save the virus to disk and then run it,
> what's the savings?
the virus doesn't propagate as quickly, nor to as many people,
before it is detected and countermeasures are put in place.
yes, this does make a significant difference.
> You could have senders
>
> the builders of the titanic didn't know that certain kinds of steel
> become brittle at cold temperatures.
>
> otoh, the developers of this user agent knew, or should have known,
> the risks of executing code of unknown origin. they have been
> understood for a long time. they were di
: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:53 AM
To: Lillian Komlossy
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
The whole world will use what they are presented with the difference
between Win3.1 and Win95 is far greater than the difference between Win95
and GNOME or KDE... so actuall
> Clearly, you need report to re-education camps
> to learn why it's important to let the government let companies have to
> freedom to innovate wonderful things like vbscript. :-)
not to mention gratuitous incompatibilites to Kerberos.
Keith
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: THe Value Of Following Standards... (was Re: VIRUS WARNING)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: THe Value Of Following Standards... (was Re: VIRUS WARNING)
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:46:33 -0400
> On Thu, 04 May 2000 09:27
> http://www.dmnews.com
> http://www.imarketingnews.com
> (212) 925-7300 ext. 232
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 10:48 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
>
> From: "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Actually what happened, was I received this virus from a trusted friend
> ... I am just glad that I didn't have any e-mail lists in my "address
> book"
That's actually an interesting bit of "social engineering" on the part of the
vi
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:48:12 -0400
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The whole world does not run software which is a good culture medium
for email viruses. I mostly use nice old UNIX software and it would
take a number of extra steps on my part for some embded
On Thu, 04 May 2000 10:41:34 EDT, "Michael H. Warfield" said:
> Your mailer may be able to display it as text (mine, Mutt, certainly
> can) but it is definitely propagating as type application/octet-stream, not
> text/plain. Wish we could lay that one on them, but we can't.
Mea Culpa - see
> I don't know about deliberate inclusion of the security hole - it looks
> more to me like "careless". Feels like it just "was not thought to be
> a danger of any kind to security"... (Does the word TITANIC mean anything to
> you?)
the builders of the titanic didn't know that certain kinds of st
Subject: Re: THe Value Of Following Standards... (was Re: VIRUS WARNING)
> So if your e-mail software is opening it and feeding it to Visual Basic
> just because it's tagged .vbs even though it's a text/plain, you're
> violating the RFCs.
well there's nothing ill
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
Donald,
The whole world will not switch over to Unix
- the average user will always be more confortable with
Windows
unless Unix will at
> From: Lillian Komlossy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The whole world will not switch over to Unix
> - the average user will always be more confortable with Windows
> unless Unix will at one point offer the same seamless user-friendliness.
> So it will always be a problem, one which cannot be solved
ECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 10:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Brian Duddy (E-mail);
Kevin Speilman (E-mail); Michael F. Young (E-mail); Perry Lewis
(E-mail); Robert E Sollmann (E-mail); Roger Shepheard (E-mail)
Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING
The file subject: ILOVEYOU
Na
> Actually what happened, was I received this virus from a trusted friend
but of course you didn't receive the virus from a trusted friend;
you received it from an impostor.
now you know not to trust names that appear in a message header.
Keith
> So if your e-mail software is opening it and feeding it to Visual Basic
> just because it's tagged .vbs even though it's a text/plain, you're
> violating the RFCs.
well there's nothing illegal about violating RFCs.
but it sure seems like the deliberate inclusion of a security hole in
email so
ECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 10:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
The whole world does not run software which is a good culture medium
for email viruses. I mostly use nice old UNIX software and it would
take a number of extra steps on my part for some embdedded vir
On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 10:46:33AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 04 May 2000 09:27:19 EDT, Scot Mc Pherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The is an e-mail virus going around. The subject of the e-mail is
> > ILOVEYOU...I suggest you delete it the moment you receive it.
> Somebody didn
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: THe Value Of Following Standards... (was Re: VIRUS WARNING)
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:46:33 -0400
> On Thu, 04 May 2000 09:27:19 EDT, Scot Mc Pherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The is an e-mail virus going around. The subject of the e-mail is
&
al Message-
From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 10:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING
The whole world does not run software which is a good culture medium
for email viruses. I mostly use nice old UNIX software and it would
take
This is actually genuine for once... it's a vbscript..
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
> The is an e-mail virus going around. The subject of the e-mail is
> ILOVEYOU...I suggest you delete it the moment you receive it.
>
> -Scot Mc Pherson, N2UPA
> -Sr. Network Analyst
> -ClearAcc
On Thu, 04 May 2000 09:27:19 EDT, Scot Mc Pherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The is an e-mail virus going around. The subject of the e-mail is
> ILOVEYOU...I suggest you delete it the moment you receive it.
Somebody didn't read RFC2046, section 2, where it talks about text/plain
being *TEXT*, a
The whole world does not run software which is a good culture medium
for email viruses. I mostly use nice old UNIX software and it would
take a number of extra steps on my part for some embdedded virus to
get a chance to run. If your software automatically executes stuff
in attachments, you nee
The file subject: ILOVEYOU
Name of attachment: LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs
DO NOT OPEN THE ATTACHMENT.
At this time very little is known about the virus. If you have opened the
file, please see your network administrator for help.
The following link to Symantec has info on what the file does to
94 matches
Mail list logo
