** Sometime around 09:45 -0500 02/11/2003, Steve Werby said:
It certainly is. However, I agree with the sentiment in your first post. IMO, the use of the word "evil" attempts to pass judgment -- and the purpose of a security alert is not to pass judgment, but to objectively summarize a vulnerability. I'd feel the same way if the security alert used the phrase "evil hackers." We can probably all agree that spammers (hackers, pedophiles, [1] etc.) are evil -- but stating that in a security alert is unnecessary and dilutes the apparent validity of the alert."Nick Simicich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:** Sometime around 14:19 -0500 02/10/2003, Steve Werby said:>>Anyway, I just don't give any security alert creedence if it uses the >>phrase "evil spammers" not once, but twice. Redundant, don't you think? > >It may well be, but sometimes I don't think it can be said often enough >:-).I'm with you on that. I was just making light of the fact that the word "evil" in "evil spammers" is redundant. <g>
Of course, in this case, the "security alert" was B.S., anyway.
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] Reference to Dubya's "Axis of Evil" elided to avoid the obvious political commentary that would ensue. <g>
