Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, hundreds over the past week or so. I have a rule for incoming mail that
just directs them to the trash. But it does make one wonder about the
participants on the list--I don't have this problem on other lists.
Not a good sign...
At 08:40 PM 7/31/2001, Greg Minshall wrote:
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.
On the other hand, aggressively ignoring
Scott writes:
The Code Red virus doesn't just use addresses
from the infected users address book ...
I was talking about fallout from the SirCam virus, which is still filling my
mailbox. As far as I can tell, it's all coming from people subscribed to this
list, but I'm not really sure.
As
Dave writes:
On the other hand, aggressively ignoring 25
years of networking security experience
should be worthy of at least a bit of criticism.
Well, if that ever happens, be sure to document it and report back to us.
On Thu, 02 Aug 2001 07:29:03 +0200, Anthony Atkielski said:
no, it's more like blaming automobile manufacturers
for producing cars whose brakes fail when used normally.
No, it's more like blaming automobile manufacturers for brakes that don't apply
themselves when the driver is too stupid
At 6:18 PM -0700 8/1/01, Bill Selmeier wrote:
Yes but to follow that analogy and again show things are usually near
black or white, in the US the Government on behalf of consumers
forced car manufacturers to install seat belts starting back in the
'60's. It then took a decade or more to
: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: 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
a subject to rant.
Maybe a special list should be set up for those who like
to spend their (spare?)time whining about Microsoft.
I propose to name that list the Any value in this list?-list.
The ieft list can than be used again for issues which really
matter.
Leen Mak.
Keith writes:
until they get burned, that is.
then they blame the network for their problems.
They are more likely to blame their OS vendor, in my experience. Microsoft is a
particularly tempting target because so many people feel compelled to bash
anyone who has done better than they have,
Randy writes:
oh you mean 98% of microsoft's customer base.
yup, that's they. and ms loves to sell to the naive.
All vendors try to sell to as many customers as possible. And today, 98% of all
customers are technically unsophisticated. So any vendor that wants to seel to
the average person
Melinda writes:
It would be refreshing if someone stepped forward
and said This is my problem. I will try to fix it.
I'll say it, at least with respect to machines under my control. I just avoid
opening suspicious attachments, actually. That works really well.
At the moment, in the case of
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Venkateswar Reddy Melachervu wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Do we have this list for debating about Microsoft products or how frequently
it released patches or to discuss about the *internet and related issues*?
And what you makes say this is not related to the internet?
Jamal writes:
MS is producing inferior products which are using
the internet to create havoc.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have any?
Jamal writes:
I dont see anything extraordinary in those claims.
You don't substantiate them, either. This being so, they serve no purpose, as
rants against Microsoft are a dime a dozen on the Net--just about every young
male who isn't rich or has failed to get an instant offer from MS after
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Jamal writes:
MS is producing inferior products which are using
the internet to create havoc.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have any?
I dont see anything extraordinary in those claims.
in regards to inferior
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Jamal writes:
BoDs at airports and ATM machines when you try
to get some cash at 3am?
I've never seen one,
Maybe this will help (and yes ive seen a few, i wish i had a camera)
http://www.daimyo.org/bsod/
Those going to the IETF: Heathrow
On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 03:06:49PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Jamal writes:
MS is producing inferior products which are using
the internet to create havoc.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have any?
How about several megabytes of data sent to the IETF
Reddy Melachervu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Samantha Naleendra Senaratna
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Any value in this list ?
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Venkateswar Reddy Melachervu wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Do we have this list
Yes but to follow that analogy and again show things are usually near
black or white, in the US the Government on behalf of consumers forced car
manufacturers to install seat belts starting back in the '60's. It then
took a decade or more to convince consumers to wear them. But they
evolved and
Keith writes:
perhaps because they are shipped that way?
Microsoft ships servers with most security features set to low security, because
customers whine and complain otherwise. Customers buy on the basis of features
and ease-of-use, not security, no matter what they might claim to the
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
-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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
Hi All,
if there is still somebody reading email to this list, I would be interested
if they see any value in being a part of this list. 95% of email to this list
are virus infected, and therefore deleted automatically by my mailserver, and I'm
tired of filtering all the virus messages to the
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.
If someone does set up a filtered version of this list, please let me know. And thanks
in advance.
H.
procmail is your friend
# thanks to Sematimba Noah K [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
*^Content-type: (multipart/mixed|application/octet-stream)
{
:0 HB
*^Content-Disposition:
attachment;.*filename=.*\.(bat|com|exe|vbs|chm|hlp|shs|wsf|vbe|wsh|hta|pif)
{
:0 fhbw
|/usr/bin/sed -e
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
gnus nnmail-split-fancy filters for the various broken virus filters
that seem to be subscribed to the ietf list.
;;; stupid virus alarms
(subject Antigen foundblackball)
(subject ScanMail Message blackball)
(subject Report to
Aye, Verily! Here! Here! Let's Hear it For MicroSoft!
At 12:09 -0400 30/07/01, 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
And when opening the session Oyez, Oyez
Ole J. Jacobsen wrote:
The Honourable Gentleman is obviously unaware of the proper phrasing:
Hear, Hear (as in Listen, Listen).
Although Parliament is currently not in session, we must not forget
proper manners ;-)
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001,
42 matches
Mail list logo
