Seems to me that MSN has made, and is making, a very clear statement
of its carefully considered regard for the interests of all Internet
Users of their software systems.
My personal solution is to avoid the use of any MSN system that I can avoid.
So I am voting with my wallet and my fingers. So far, the only
impact of this latest annoyance is the trash flowing on this list as
a result of failure to discriminate between trash and not-trash.
I do appreciate the effort to at least surgically remove the virus
code from the forwarded mail. I am not sure why they don't also top
forwarding the rest of such messages, along with all the notices,
since it is obvious that there is no useful content in the message
without its virus/worm code, and then they could also stop sending us
two notices of removed virus.worm code for each forwarded instance of
a neutered virus/worm bearing message.
Since it is clear that they are able to recognize the ornery little beasties,
why not go all the way, and just send them all to [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Think of all the mental effort and anguish that this would save us
from;-)... I hesitate to try to put a value on it, but it must come
close to $100,000 by now for this instance.
Cheers...\Stef
At 20:54 -0700 24/07/01, James P. Salsman wrote:
>Vernon Schryver asks:
>
> >... Is there a reasonable filter than can filter what Microsoft considers
> > active content?
>
<SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>
>The correct solution is to find out who at Microsoft refuses to put
>security safeguards on the address book(s) and allows scripts to
>fully send messages instead of queueing for approval. I find it
>amazing that they haven't implemented such easy fixes in the past
>couple of years, after things started getting really bad. I theorize
>that the human race is in a darwinian symbiosis with the email worms,
>which, like wolves, cull the weak (less intelligent) from the herd,
>allowing additional resources for the rest.
>
>Cheers,
>James
