On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered secretively:
> I'm not sure what the SA folks think about this now a days. A while
> back, they removed the checks for MS executables as being spam
> indicators even though the test actually is a very good indicator of
> spam.
That's because it did
Thomas Cameron wrote:
> Howdy -
>
> I recently responded to a thread on a local LUG mailing list where a guy
> wanted to report a virus as spam. I have always thought that using a
> spam tool to fight viruses was wrong, and I said so. He asked why, and
> basically my response was "use the right
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thomas Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recently responded to a thread on a local LUG mailing list where a guy
> wanted to report a virus as spam. [...]
>
> What is the "conventional wisdom" on this list? Should viruses be
> reported as spam? If so, why? If not, w
Thomas Cameron wrote:
Howdy -
I recently responded to a thread on a local LUG mailing list where a guy
wanted to report a virus as spam. I have always thought that using a
spam tool to fight viruses was wrong, and I said so. He asked why, and
basically my response was "use the right tool for t
Howdy -
I recently responded to a thread on a local LUG mailing list where a guy
wanted to report a virus as spam. I have always thought that using a
spam tool to fight viruses was wrong, and I said so. He asked why, and
basically my response was "use the right tool for the job," as in use a
vir
