RE: [iwar] News
From: Junkmail Rosenberger
To: iwar
From: junkmail@kumite.com
To: iwar@egroups.com
Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:31:39 -0500
fc Tue Jun 20 15:33:17 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
(with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Tue Jun 20 22:33:11 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-418-961540387-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Tue Jun 20 17:33:04 2000
Received: from mk.egroups.com (mk.egroups.com [207.138.41.165]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id RAA03699 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:33:04 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-418-961540387-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.38] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 22:33:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 30946 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 22:33:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 22:33:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nospam.barnowl.com) (206.72.12.109) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 22:33:00 -0000
Received: from nospam.barnowl.com ([10.1.1.12]) by nospam.barnowl.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id QAA19352 for iwar@egroups.com; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:31:39 -0500
Message-Id: <200006202131.QAA19352@nospam.barnowl.com>
To: "iwar"
X-Mailer: Ghost Mail 5.1 http://ay.home.ml.org/
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
From: "Junkmail Rosenberger"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:31:39 -0500
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] News
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>why nobody is sueing Microsoft for implementing a
>>"feature" like the execution of e-mail attached VB
>>scripts, that has no practical application at all
>>for any user (apart the one of implementing a
>>computer virus). As bad as the effects of this
>>virus were, I think that at least 50% of fault goes
>>to MS.
You make it sound like your first line of defense is a Microsoft product. Why
not instead sue antivirus vendors for failing to protect you?
Ask yourself why popular antivirus software DOESN'T check for the years-old
".???.???" filename trick. How much effort does it take to look for two
periods in the last eight characters of a filename? Only evil attachments use
it. Checking for it would have saved the world (before the fact!) from
ILoveYou, NewLove, and now Stages.
Rob Rosenberger, webmaster
Computer Virus Myths home page
http://www.kumite.com/myths
U.S. (319) 646-2800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT Professionals: Match your unique skills with the best IT projects at
http://click.egroups.com/1/3381/7/_/595019/_/961540387/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
http://all.net/