One wonders which causes more damage - lame virii from socially inept
teenagers or endless warnings from well-meaning servers...
At 12:08 PM -0400 5/9/01, 'IT Virus Filter' wrote:
>Hello-
>
>You are receiving this message because an email message with a
>suspicious attachment was intercepted by
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Rasku" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Suspicious email message intercepted
> What happens if someone wants to post a vbs script that wor
What happens if someone wants to post a vbs script that works with
cvs?
doanld
Fortunately, that's at least less likely. Most of us deal with CVS on Unix
boxes of some sort, and Virus-writers' Benefactor System doesn't run on
those.
Of course, we have had automated complaints about Perl, and
< Re: Suspicious email message intercepted >
> One wonders which causes more damage - lame virii from socially inept
> teenagers or endless warnings from well-meaning servers...
~lol~
gph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
KeyID: 0xC8C9D69A
FP: 57C8 1B1D CFE4 8515 AA3E 4499 A326 0F
Richard Wesley wrote:
>
>One wonders which causes more damage - lame virii from socially
inept
>teenagers or endless warnings from well-meaning servers...
>
Exactly. Would it be possible to configure the list to drop .vbs
submissions so we don't have this problem?
--
Stephen Rasku
What happens if someone wants to post a vbs script that works with
cvs?
doanld
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:26:32AM -0700, Stephen Rasku wrote:
> Richard Wesley wrote:
>
> >
> >One wonders which causes more damage - lame virii from socially
> inept
> >teenagers or endless warnings from well-mean
>
> Could we filter out the incoming messages so that they would have to be
> from somebody on the list, rejecting messages from people like
> MAILER-DAEMON?
>
If this is possible, it would drop the "please subscribe me; I can't use
the webpage" mails too :)
- Matt
___
Donald Sharp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What happens if someone wants to post a vbs script that works with
> cvs?
They can zip the file before sending it, or (even better) send a
pointer to a webpage that contains the script rather than clogging up
everyone's mail spools with file attachments
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:09:24PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> Donald Sharp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What happens if someone wants to post a vbs script that works with
> > cvs?
>
> They can zip the file before sending it, or (even better) send a
> pointer to a webpage that contains the
Donald Sharp wrote:
>
>What happens if someone wants to post a vbs script that works
with
>cvs?
>
If anyone thinks they might want to do that, they can speak up
now. In any case, if they change the extension name, they should
be able to post it anyway.
--
Stephen Rasku E-m
Donald Sharp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Suspicious email message intercepted
|
| Of course a more important part of the solution would be for the
| servers sending out these virus reports to be configured to not rep
"Uhhh .. damnit Beavis, don't make me kick your ass."
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:53:52PM -0400, Donald Sharp wrote:
> What happens if someone wants to post a vbs script that works with
> cvs?
>
> doanld
> On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:26:32AM -0700, Stephen Rasku wrote:
> > Richard Wesley wrote:
>
Could one paste a VBS script into the mail message instead of
attaching it as a file? Or, maybe attach a gzipped version of the
script?
If the gnu mailing list software automatically trashed executable
attachments (not just .vbs, but also .exe and others?) we can still
share script source wit
Laine Stump writes:
>
> Of course a more important part of the solution would be for the
> servers sending out these virus reports to be configured to not reply
> to mailing lists, but you can bet that'll never happen :-(
Those servers are broken by design (or really badly configured). The
"To:
Donald Sharp writes:
>
> Actually it's a fairly good thing to send out the warning email
> to a list. People might thus avoid getting the virus.
No, it's not. Since the warning almost always arrives *after* the
original message, it's pretty much useless. And, it's extremely
impolite -- we don
Wednesday, May 09, 2001 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Suspicious email message intercepted
> Donald Sharp writes:
> >
> > Actually it's a fairly good thing to send out the warning email
> > to a list. People might thus avoid getting the virus.
>
> No, it's not. Si
IL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Donald Sharp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 2:47 PM
>Subject: Re: Suspicious email message intercepted
>
>
>> Donald Sharp writes:
>> >
>> >
TED]]
Sent: May 9, 2001 3:14 PM
To: Larry Jones; Donald Sharp
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Suspicious email message intercepted
I guess I was lucky, I received two warnings before the homepage e-mail
actually arrived ;-)
- Original Message -
From: "Larry
Donald Sharp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What happens if someone wants to post a vbs script that works with
> cvs?
Perhaps we can request submittors rename it to .txt or something
which won't be automatically executed if it is clicked or selected.
Windows makes the situation worse because by d
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:48 -0700, Richard Wesley wrote:
>
> One wonders which causes more damage - lame virii from socially
> inept teenagers or endless warnings from well-meaning
> servers...
The latter. Plus the subscribers to quote them all in full size
once more.
> [ giant snip ]
virt
[ On Wednesday, May 9, 2001 at 14:18:51 (-0400), Donald Sharp wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Suspicious email message intercepted
>
> Actually it's a fairly good thing to send out the warning email
> to a list. People might thus avoid getting the virus.
Actually it IS NOT! NEV
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:57 AM
To: Donald Sharp
Cc: Laine Stump; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Suspicious email message intercepted
[ On Wednesday, May 9, 2001 at 14:18:51 (-0400), Donald Sharp wrote
intercepted
< Re: Suspicious email message intercepted >
> One wonders which causes more damage - lame virii from socially inept
> teenagers or endless warnings from well-meaning servers...
~lol~
gph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
KeyID: 0xC8C9D69A
FP: 57C8 1B1D CFE4 8515 AA3E 4499 A326 0F
"Echlin, Michael" wrote:
> Much the same as I got this message before I got Larry's.
> (I hate it when I get the answer before the question Don't you, makes me
> wonder what the H they are talking about. I wonder if Anthony is psychic?
That would be because of the way mailman handles its que
Has the mailing list manager at gnu.org been listening to this discussion?
--
Fred Brehm, Sarnoff Corporation, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:09 -0400, Frederic Brehm wrote:
>
> Has the mailing list manager at gnu.org been listening to this
> discussion?
Has he(?) been included? You cannot assume that a list manager
would read all the list's traffic.
virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4
26 matches
Mail list logo
