Re: gatwick - hilton info?
Arriving late Sunday (10pm arrival scheduled) at Gatwick and going from there to the Hilton Metropole. The transportation web page gives lots of hype about how convenient the hotel is to just about everything, but precious little detail. Would someone who knows this sort of thing recommend the Gatwick Express and then a taxi from Victoria Station? (I'll have luggage, so the underground isn't appealing.) Take the Gatwick Express to Victoria Stn. (30 minutes *iff* it's running on time.) If you're quick about it you should still be able to take the underground to Paddington (check at Victoria to see if it's still running when you get there). From Victoria underground, take the Circle Line westbound to Edgware Road station, which is right across the stret. --lyndon (who made the trip yesterday)
Re: gatwick - hilton info?
Express and then a taxi from Victoria Station? (I'll have luggage, so the underground isn't appealing.) Sorry, I missd the luggage bit. Yes, you'll want to take a taxi from Victoria.
Re: Any value in this list ?
Well, though this may not be a topic for this list, I also want to add my 2 eurocent here (:-) . First, I'm neither a MS hater nor a MS lover. Actually this company is responsible for a lot of fun I had especially in the last 12 months when I red their comments about open software and especially Linux (please don't let us enter the philosophical discussion here, if Linux and/or Linux/390 is open software or not). However, the problem here is NOT a MS problem. If we assume that 20,000 people are subscribed to this list, then 20,000 computers have to run senseless filters to get rid of the crap mail. My opinion is, if only one (1) computer runs this filters (the listserver itself), this is much much more efficient than anything else. You may say, this doesn't help against spam and viruses mailed directly to you. Though you are right, this is a completely different quality of disturbing people at work. Sending just ONE mail to a list may disturb and waste time of 100,000's of people and waste CPU-time of 100,000's of computers. This is definitely not necessary, because the listserver itself could easily throw away this crap. Therefore I still say: this is NOT Microsofts fault, this is a bad behaviour of the listserver, and again EVERY listserver's default behaviour should be: .) Throw silently away mails containing viruses, .) Throw silently away mails containing the string [spam in the subject. This would save lots of bandwidth for the Internet, and save lots of CPU cycles of computers all over the world. My 2 ec, Herbert At 23:18 30/07/2001, Mark Durham wrote: Theodore Tso wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:17:48AM -0700, Mark Durham wrote: I'm doing the same. This is situation is absurd, and an embarrassment to the IETF. Those I've mentioned it to (some of whom are *very* active in WGs) just shook their heads in amazement. Personally, I'd say it's an embarassment to *Microsoft*. Let's allocate blame where it properly belongs. They were the ones who made the mail reader which made these sorts of viruses possible - Ted Well, yes, and point taken. For that matter, you can take it even further upstream and blame Satan for all the world's evils, thereby washing your hands of the whole mess. Obviously, Redmond is ultimately culpable here (along with those who exploit their little loopholes); and, on the downstream side, list subscribers must ultimately watch out for their own interests. But moral superiority and libertarian ethics aside, the list manager seems to be in an excellent position to solve this problem. Still, if that's an unacceptable infringement of recipients' autonomy, so be it. Some people make a strong argument for running an open relay, too (though I don't buy that one either). In any case, embarrassment was probably the wrong word, though I still think absurd fits. But I do agree re: Microsoft. And my apologies for being so ill-tempered.
RE: Any value in this list ?
boring virus emails i supose hacKinG does not include the 'to be B0Ring' package by default. why do we still have virus messages on the mailing lisT? freedom ends when it reachs the freedom of other - this limit can be the reference to take some action or not. i think we should 'patch' this kind of email garbage. email with virus may be reaching ietf two ways: 1. email generated with fictitious source - action that can be taken: * check the source IP address; * write email to network admin; * if no result available in short time - deny the entire ip class on the edge router immediatelly before ietf SMTP servers. 2. email sent by someone infected with 'auto-spread' virus: * contact the user and advice about action to be taken. my mouse would be happy if i don't have to click it such amount of times without any life consistent purpose. thank you j0rge card0sO -Original Message- From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Terça-feira, 31 de Julho de 2001 13:35 To: H. Szumovski (via secureshell) Cc: Theodore Tso; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Durham Subject: Re: Any value in this list ? Therefore I still say: this is NOT Microsofts fault so what you are saying is that it's the job of the network to not deliver any content to you that you don't want to see, and for the network to somehow figure that out in advance, so that you're never inconvenienced? no matter how much trash other network sites send your way? (this list being a special case of the network) presumably the network should also accomodate everyone else's desires for filtering also, all at the same time? and presumably you're also willing to tolerate the network making incorrect decisions, say 10% of the time, and either inappropriately blocking or inappropriately admitting a message that you don't want to see? and you're willing to accept the amount of complexity/state that must be absorbed by the network, and the corresponding loss of reliability and scalability, and the increase in operational cost? and you're willing to have the network shoulder this responsibility no matter how poorly the software at the endpoints is written, and no matter how vulnerable it is to attack by miscreants? seems to me that it's attitudes like that that produce products like the SMTP firewall that currently sits in front of odin.ietf.org (and counteless other SMTP servers) which prevents SMTP from working properly. separation of function, scalability, reliability, and proper operation be dammed - what's most important is that no garbage get through. the end-to-end argument is completely discarded because we have no way of forcing Microsoft to produce reliable software or to accept responsibility for its negligence. Keith hmmm. maybe the snail-mail service's mail sorters could automatically detect and discard junk mail. and maybe the phone network could altomatically detect telemarketers and electrocute them... it does have a certain appeal to it.
Re: Any value in this list ?
At 14:35 31/07/2001, Keith Moore wrote: Therefore I still say: this is NOT Microsofts fault so what you are saying is that it's the job of the network to not deliver any content to you that you don't want to see, and for the network to somehow figure that out in advance, so that you're never inconvenienced? no matter how much trash other network sites send your way? A listserver is not the network (actually I don't see anything which IS the network). A listserver is just a more or less dumb server which serves 1000's, possibly 100,000's of users. As mentioned, I don't see any problem to add a virus-scanner and a short script to the listserver to discard virus-attachments and spams. Though it will not find everything, it will enhance the situation a lot. I especially don't like the way one company is lynched for every software problem in the world. I use a mail client who filters all these virus informations from this list into the trash and marks them read. Every mailclient can do that (possibly Outlook cannot, I don't know and I don't care, because I don't use it). BUT: this is not the job of my PC and not the job of 10,000's of other PC's running any OS with any mailclient you can think of. It's the job of the server who spreads these mails around (because it seems to be too difficult to put the childish or silly guys into jail, who have enough time to waste in their life to create such mails). And I think it's an easy job, and there are no emotions necessary. /Herbert (this list being a special case of the network) presumably the network should also accomodate everyone else's desires for filtering also, all at the same time? and presumably you're also willing to tolerate the network making incorrect decisions, say 10% of the time, and either inappropriately blocking or inappropriately admitting a message that you don't want to see? and you're willing to accept the amount of complexity/state that must be absorbed by the network, and the corresponding loss of reliability and scalability, and the increase in operational cost? and you're willing to have the network shoulder this responsibility no matter how poorly the software at the endpoints is written, and no matter how vulnerable it is to attack by miscreants? seems to me that it's attitudes like that that produce products like the SMTP firewall that currently sits in front of odin.ietf.org (and counteless other SMTP servers) which prevents SMTP from working properly. separation of function, scalability, reliability, and proper operation be dammed - what's most important is that no garbage get through. the end-to-end argument is completely discarded because we have no way of forcing Microsoft to produce reliable software or to accept responsibility for its negligence. Keith hmmm. maybe the snail-mail service's mail sorters could automatically detect and discard junk mail. and maybe the phone network could altomatically detect telemarketers and electrocute them... it does have a certain appeal to it.
Re: Production Feb 7
You realize, of course, that there is no way I am going to open an attached Shortcut to MS-DOS Program (double dot file). I suspect a viral infection. Robert Shelton wrote: Part 1.1Type: Plain Text (text/plain) Encoding: quoted-printable Name: Production Feb 7.xls.pif Production Feb 7.xls.pif Type: Shortcut to MS-DOS Program (application/x-unknown-content-type-piffile) Encoding: base64 Download Status: Not downloaded with message -- James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA Booz, Allen Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566
Re: gatwick - hilton info?
On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 10:16:53AM -0400, Fred Douglis wrote: Since my mail to the list, I received quite a few private responses basically confirming that the train to the taxi is reasonable (or taxi from the airport at greater cost -- I may do this given the late arrival time, and a comment from one person about how even the train isn't that conducive to luggage). I see there was eventually one public response as well -- Thanks, Lyndon. Does anyone have an estimate of the cost of the taxi from the airport to the hotel? -MM -- Michael Mealling| Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://www.neonym.net Democracy gives an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. -- Walter Williams
Re: Production Feb 7
In particular, http://antivirus.about.com/library/weekly/aa071801a.htm?iam=dpileterms=%2BSirCam Documents' folders is one of the most accessible, whether from the desktop, Windows Explorer, or the default save to location in many programs. As a result, many use it as a repository for all their data files - even those which contain sensitive or confidential information. This practice has never been a good idea as it gives ill-intentioned intruders a virtual roadmap to your personal and work output. The SirCam worm takes the vulnerability one step further, using the contents of the folder to package and disguise itself to others. Sircam, (a.k.a. I-Worm.Sircam, W32.Sircam, and W32/SircCam) mass mails itself using addresses found in the Windows Address Book and in cached email addresses found on the system. The attachment it sends is a compilation of its infection routine and a file found in the My Documents folder. The original name of the file is left intact, with an executable extension appended to it. For example, .PIF, .COM, or .EXE would be added to the orginal filename, thus myphoto.jpg would become myphoto.jpg.exe. Users who did not have file extension viewing enabled would see only the original extension and in the example above, could be tricked into believing an executable file was actually a harmless image file. The worm then mails itself in an email with following message body: Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later! Thanks The subject line of the email is the name of the orginal file. When the infected attachment is executed, whatever file was lifted from the sender's My Document folder is displayed, thus disguising the SirCam worm's actions. This is particularly risky, as an infected user who stores confidential data in the My Documents folder could easily find proprietary and sensitive data mass-mailed to others. SirCam then copies itself to the Recycle Bin, C:\recycled\SirC32.exe, in an attempt to avoid detection by some antivirus scanners. The worm modifies the registry, [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\exefile\shell\open\command], so that the worm is run first when any .EXE on the system is run. This method makes improper removal of the worm a dangerous proposition. If the worm is deleted before the registry modification is corrected, no .EXE on the system will run. Complete removal instructions, either manually or via an automated tool can be found at: http://antivirus.about.com/library/weekly/aa072301a.htm. Meritt James wrote: You realize, of course, that there is no way I am going to open an attached Shortcut to MS-DOS Program (double dot file). I suspect a viral infection. Robert Shelton wrote: Part 1.1Type: Plain Text (text/plain) Encoding: quoted-printable Name: Production Feb 7.xls.pif Production Feb 7.xls.pif Type: Shortcut to MS-DOS Program (application/x-unknown-content-type-piffile) Encoding: base64 Download Status: Not downloaded with message -- James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA Booz, Allen Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566 -- James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA Booz, Allen Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566
Re: Any value in this list ?
How about the ones who have the problem doing a bit towards solving THEIR problem? You think there is one-and-only-one cause for everything? Perhaps you didn't notice that the patch to repair the vulnerability that Red Code exploits was released back in June? Keith Moore wrote: I especially don't like the way one company is lynched for every software problem in the world. you'd rather put the burden of responsibility for solving the problem on somebody besides the folks who caused it? -- James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA Booz, Allen Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566
RE: Any value in this list ?
from the outside, it appears as if microsoft consciously decided to distribute software with everything enabled so that their product would be perceived as very easy to use. the problem is that this means it is also easy to abuse. so the net is now paying for them having a more salable product. who gains, who is bearing the cost? randy
multiple culpability (was: Any value in this list ?)
What is more important, figuring out who first exploited a vulnerability, or preventing the vulnerability from being exploited? The former is base quibbling, unsuited for thinking human beings. But then again, the popularly (mayby even legally) elected President of the U.S. is teaching a no-credit course at Columbia because U.S. citizens haven't figured out how to rank their ballots. Maybe punch cards are finally on their way out. Maybe Microsoft will learn that three alphanumeric characters are a few bytes too small for a modern type-space. They used to be easy to use when active content was limited to .COM, .BAT, and .BAS. Now it is a problem to be solved. Borenstein and Freed of the IETF solved it long ago, and for a while it looked like Microsoft was almost in the clear, but the guild mentality got the best of their customers. Let the buyer beware! some might say. Hang the vandals! call others. Please study the security considerations! is sometimes drowned out. Cheers, James
Re: Any value in this list ?
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:17:59 +0200, H. Szumovski (via secureshell) said: .) Throw silently away mails containing the string [spam in the subject. I've never actually seen a spam that has '[spam]' in the subject. I save the RFC822 headers of mail I receive, and of the 4,652 headers I have going back to Feb 1, there are 13 that match 'grep -i spam'. Of those, 8 are from a thread Subject: kyxspam: isc loses mind and 5 are from a thread Subject: More member-only anti-spam. On the other hand, I average 20-30 pieces of spam a day that do NOT contain 'spam' in the Subject: header. A better heuristic is called for. -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech PGP signature
RE: Any value in this list ?
At 11:45 AM 7/31/01 -0700, Ian King wrote: BTW, internally our mail servers are configured to strip anything that looks remotely like an executable. Sometimes this is a pain (I can't mail a legitimate script to a colleague), but that's the world in which we live - more openness means more opportunity for sabots in the gears. #!/bin/sh cat EOF foo cd / rm -rf * EOF Oh, wait. Nevermind. In any event, blaming any one company for viruses because its products are abused, seems way too much like e.g. blaming automobile manufacturers for reckless driving. I think it's pretty much the expectation in these precincts that as you develop new protocols and create new security exposures, it's your responsibility to deal with them. You'll note, too, that just because someone who would break into your house is a criminal miscreant doesn't mean that you don't lock the doors. It would be refreshing if someone stepped forward and said This is my problem. I will try to fix it. Melinda
Melinda, I'm impressed
, X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:19:58 -0400 To: Ian King [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Any value in this list ? Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - snip It would be refreshing if someone stepped forward and said This is my problem. I will try to fix it. Melinda Thank you for a bit of light in the darkness. BTW, it appears to me that Microsoft engineers its products for demonstrators, rather than for users. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia
Re: Any value in this list ?
(bias indicator: i'm a microsoft basher; hate them, hate them!) here's what i think... when Ted said: Personally, I'd say it's an embarassment to *Microsoft*. Let's allocate blame where it properly belongs. They were the ones who made the mail reader which made these sorts of viruses possible i thought, well, *i* can't complain; i'm certain there's at least one CERT advisory on buffer overflow in, say, telnetd, that's my fault. and, it occurred to me (as it has to many, i'm sure) that microsoft is targeted so much because, in the immortal words of Milo Medin, they have a larger ballistic cross-section (i think i got that expression right). Randy said: from the outside, it appears as if microsoft consciously decided to distribute software with everything enabled so that their product would be perceived as very easy to use. the problem is that this means it is also easy to abuse. so the net is now paying for them having a more salable product. who gains, who is bearing the cost? and i think, well, to be fair, that's been a problem almost *all* companies getting into networking have had, even (i think) the early router companies. at kinetics (an early [mostly macintosh] router company), we constantly had tension between plug and play for home/small office users and it ain't on the net till i bloody well say it's on the net from sysadmins in large sites. (someone quoted Cuckoo's Nest as saying the same about mid-1980's Unix boxes and that might be true, too; certainly i think ``ipforwarding'' was set to 1 by default for a long time.) again, in fairness, i think this is an issue that takes a while for a corporate culture (*any* not-already-heavily-internet-imbued corporate culture) to incorporate. so, i can't blame microsoft for not getting it (but, it would be good for them to get it as soon as possible!). now, maybe there are many subtleties i don't see (undoubtedly there are). but, as much as i like bashing Microsoft, on this particular point i am first stone inhibited. and, know that whatever is the biggest target is going to take the most (in number and in sophistication) shots. (i also, in total ignorance, have a tinge of wonder as to whether something we haven't yet defined in MIME, or something we defined incorrectly, might have some bearing on this. i can't define that any better than that, though it seems maybe there could be some way of marking this part will be executed.) cheers, Greg Minshall (happy FreeBSD user)
Re: Any value in this list ?
All vendors do it, because no matter what customers say, they really do prefer ease of use and fancy features to system security. If you try to sell a truly secure system that is configured by default in a secure mode, nobody will buy it. Any vendor that wants to stay in business, including Microsoft, rapidly comes to understand this. - Original Message - From: Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Ian King [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 01:03 Subject: RE: Any value in this list ? Isn't this what Cliff Stoll wrote about Unix vendors in the Cuckoo's Egg? ;) At 1:06 PM -0400 7/31/01, Randy Bush wrote: from the outside, it appears as if microsoft consciously decided to distribute software with everything enabled so that their product would be perceived as very easy to use. the problem is that this means it is also easy to abuse. so the net is now paying for them having a more salable product. who gains, who is bearing the cost? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward LewisNAI Labs Phone: +1 443-259-2352 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You fly too often when ... the airport taxi is on speed-dial. Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.
Re: Any value in this list ?
I completely agree with Ian. Just to quote him back - It's not as if Outlook or any other MUA automatically launches these viruses - people who evidently live in a complete vacuum and have never heard warnings about executable content, blissfully double-click on the clearly-identified package, and it blows up in their (our) faces - If only we prevent ourselves opening rather double-clicking the so-called affected attachments Regards, M.Venkateswar Reddy -- Huawei Technologies, Shenzhen, China Off : +86 755 6540476/77 Hotel :+86 755 660 Room No:540 * The opinions expressed are purely personal* -- - Original Message - From: Ian King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 2:45 AM Subject: RE: Any value in this list ? Randy, People wanted to do more than just exchange text messages, and Microsoft (and other companies) built products to help them do that. Microsoft also produces a lot of information on how to secure its products. I do not have the data at hand, but I have read several times that when Microsoft servers are compromised, it is often because they are misconfigured. The argument then becomes, Why aren't they easier to configure? Go back to premise #1, that people want to do more than just exchange text messages - they want collaboration and forwarding and rich attachments and scheduling and all the rest of it. The bells and whistles require lots of knobs and switches I would also point out that NONE of this class of viruses can infect unless the user executes them! It's not as if Outlook or any other MUA automatically launches these viruses - people who evidently live in a complete vacuum and have never heard warnings about executable content, blissfully double-click on the clearly-identified package, and it blows up in their (our) faces. BTW, internally our mail servers are configured to strip anything that looks remotely like an executable. Sometimes this is a pain (I can't mail a legitimate script to a colleague), but that's the world in which we live - more openness means more opportunity for sabots in the gears. In any event, blaming any one company for viruses because its products are abused, seems way too much like e.g. blaming automobile manufacturers for reckless driving. Sure, no one really needs a car that can do 150 MPH when the limit is 60 or 70, but the majority of customers demand a vehicle that *could* do twice the limit, regardless of whether they take advantage of the capability -- or those vehicles wouldn't sell. Bottom line: blaming the instrumentality is easy, but futile. Human beings are responsible for their own actions, although some wish to evade or abuse that responsibility. Again, this is my own opinion, no one else's -- Ian -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 10:07 AM To: Ian King Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Any value in this list ? from the outside, it appears as if microsoft consciously decided to distribute software with everything enabled so that their product would be perceived as very easy to use. the problem is that this means it is also easy to abuse. so the net is now paying for them having a more salable product. who gains, who is bearing the cost? randy
Re: Any value in this list ?
people who evidently live in a complete vacuum and have never heard warnings about executable content oh you mean 98% of microsoft's customer base. yup, that's they. and ms loves to sell to the naive. randy
RE: Any value in this list ?
Hey, I do not totally agree with Ian. I think Microsoft does not give enough emphasis into security in their products. They do a hell of a job on marketing their products and making them seem flashy and attractive, and only if they put that much work on security. For example six patches were put forward only for this month for patching up vulnerabilities on their products. It is a fact that most of viruses are propagated via Outlook. It is about time that Microsoft gave more thought into this rather than giving excuses because by far they are leading the market in software products as well as they have the resources to do it. Sam At 11:45 AM 7/31/2001 -0700, Ian King wrote: Randy, People wanted to do more than just exchange text messages, and Microsoft (and other companies) built products to help them do that. Microsoft also produces a lot of information on how to secure its products. I do not have the data at hand, but I have read several times that when Microsoft servers are compromised, it is often because they are misconfigured. The argument then becomes, Why aren't they easier to configure? Go back to premise #1, that people want to do more than just exchange text messages - they want collaboration and forwarding and rich attachments and scheduling and all the rest of it. The bells and whistles require lots of knobs and switches I would also point out that NONE of this class of viruses can infect unless the user executes them! It's not as if Outlook or any other MUA automatically launches these viruses - people who evidently live in a complete vacuum and have never heard warnings about executable content, blissfully double-click on the clearly-identified package, and it blows up in their (our) faces. BTW, internally our mail servers are configured to strip anything that looks remotely like an executable. Sometimes this is a pain (I can't mail a legitimate script to a colleague), but that's the world in which we live - more openness means more opportunity for sabots in the gears. In any event, blaming any one company for viruses because its products are abused, seems way too much like e.g. blaming automobile manufacturers for reckless driving. Sure, no one really needs a car that can do 150 MPH when the limit is 60 or 70, but the majority of customers demand a vehicle that *could* do twice the limit, regardless of whether they take advantage of the capability -- or those vehicles wouldn't sell. Bottom line: blaming the instrumentality is easy, but futile. Human beings are responsible for their own actions, although some wish to evade or abuse that responsibility. Again, this is my own opinion, no one else's -- Ian -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 10:07 AM To: Ian King Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Any value in this list ? from the outside, it appears as if microsoft consciously decided to distribute software with everything enabled so that their product would be perceived as very easy to use. the problem is that this means it is also easy to abuse. so the net is now paying for them having a more salable product. who gains, who is bearing the cost? randy
Removal from the list
Hi All, Could anyone let me know , how do I remove myself from this mailing list ? Ashutosh Ashutosh Agarwal [EMAIL PROTECTED] I trust I make myself obscure
Re: Any value in this list ?
Randy, I do not mean to support MS neither am I blaming others. What I'm trying to say and agree in Ian's mail is that - it's not that software is automatically opening the Pandora's box. Additionally, it's finally some of us who are trying to derive fun by creating such havoc. It's some individual/group who is responsible for the havoc. If we can do some thing to prevent this in recurring, we have to find effective ways as already some mails have been exchanged and some ideas are voiced in this list. Regards, M.Venkateswar Reddy -- Huawei Technologies, Shenzhen, China Off : +86 755 6540476/77 Hotel :+86 755 660 Room No:540 * The opinions expressed in this mail are personal * -- - Original Message - From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Venkateswar Reddy Melachervu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Ian King [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:54 AM Subject: Re: Any value in this list ? people who evidently live in a complete vacuum and have never heard warnings about executable content oh you mean 98% of microsoft's customer base. yup, that's they. and ms loves to sell to the naive. randy
Re: Any value in this list ?
it may come down to whether or not one believes in gun control. 99% of net users are innocent children. should we ship guns that are loaded and with the safeties off? randy
