Re: Test mail

Mike Galbraith
2001-07-30T18:01:29Z

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

> Ignacio Vazquez-Ab writes:
> > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, christophe barbé wrote:
>
> >> Would it not be simple and effective to filter out mail produced by
> >> Outlook?
> >> It sounds to me the equivalent of RBL & co.
> >> RBL filter out mail from open relay used to spam us.
> >> NoOutlook filter out mail from poor software/OS used to propagate viruses.
> >>
> >> I guess that 100% of incomming viruses in lkml come from a Outlook mailer.
> >> And for the last two ones I'm sure.
> >>
> >> Christophe
> >
> > Um, that's just a little (LITTLE?!?) draconian/elitist. How about
> > putting in a handler that renames EXEs attachments and EXEs in
> > compressed files to something a little less executable?
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Outlook or OE, but you
> > can't just step on people who use them.
>
> This is a lot less draconian/elitist than banning ISPs. People
> seldom have a choice between multiple ISPs that offer affordable
> high-speed connections. Consider yourself lucky if both DSL and
> cable modem service are available and affordable in your area.
>
> Banning Outlook isn't so bad. Assuming you are stuck with Windows,
> you still have many choices. Netscape/Mozilla and Eudora would be
> the obvious choices. I think you can get pine. Emacs has been
> ported to Windows, so you have the rmail/gnus stuff. Surely you
> can tolerate at least one of these many choices.

Why bother? The _occasional_ spam slips through the filters. I don't
see any real difference if some weenie slips me a plain spam or a spam
with an impotent attachment I'm not going to look at anyway. It all
costs me the same.. one 'D'+download cost.

-Mike