On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:11:32AM +0100, P Witte wrote: > was Re: [ql-users] "DIANOUX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Bill Waugh writes: > > > No need for tantrums lads, I think I started this merely by mentioning > that > > I had received a virus twice from the same source, would you rather I had > > kept quiet and let it spread further. > > The bandwidth expended by those like myself who commented on the fact that > a > > virus was infecting the list is nothing compared to that expended by those > > who now choose to complain about it at great length ( Per ). > > I submitted a reasoned explanation about why I objected to being sniped at > (again) for a legitimate complaint and warning to other users. (When I sent > my mail had hadnt seen yours.) In the interest of avoiding a posting of a > list of some 400 email programs I felt this very small sacrifice in > bandwidth to be very well worth it ;)
hehe, the 400 email progs was not a very serious offer from me, there is only about 10 I could really recommend and maybe some 20 others I tried. Otoh if other people have positive experiences with their email software it would be only fair to give them appropriate room to present their experiences - after all the original worm and subsequent thread already filled our mailboxes with at least 111031 bytes in 25 emails (Sunday 13:30).. the virus itself was 41132 bytes btw. In short I consider 1 warning message utterly sufficient, if not outright overkill. Most people use appropriate software and know how to operate it - if not it is their choice. However I can't help to say it is a strange system where you can't even safely view tiff images for example, no other system that has ever been marketed or given away for free has so bad security. Richard
