> I don't think it's that pedantic. Certainly Outlook is to blame, but if
> your mailserver crashes due to being flooded with virus email, you can't
> stand there over the charred soggy remains and say "Oh, my linux box wasn't
> susceptible to this virus. Hooray!" You wouldn't even need a large
> userbase, if they're mostly using Outlook and mostly not aware of the virus
> itself. In fact that sounds a lot like the place I work at.
It's not a case of self-congratulation. The question is: what do we need
to fix to eliminate the problem. The answer is clear: unsafe practices
that offer "convenience" but expose the user to danger. Even a user with
another mail agent like Eudora would been better off.
A Linux user in a mostly Outlook site might be flooded with lots of
mail from her colleagues, and suffer inconvenience from the servers
being taken offline but would lose no local files.
The point about pedantry is that sometimes we techos are our own worst
promoters. The media is saying "all computers are vulnerable" and we
should correct that by telling them that "some of us use responsible software
and we may have been inconvenienced but we are largely unaffected".
------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent via NLC WebMail: http://www.nlc.net.au/
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
