[OT] Re: new photos from my party!

[OT] Re: new photos from my party!

[J Sloan]

Matthew Sell wrote:

>
> What the hell does "fair" have to do with anything? Should we cut you 
> some slack because you use Outlook? "Oh, he uses Outlook. Don't be so 
> hard on him. He didn't *mean* to send everyone in his contact list a 
> trojan that formatted our hard drives." 

hehe - I have no worries about that -

You see, I am running this cool OS called Linux -
You may have heard of it? It's invulnerable to the
pee cee viruses that outlook has been spreading.

Peace out -

Joe

RE: new photos from my party!

[Karl]

Scott,

  Some of us do use Outlook for a reason, ie Corporate Policies
etc...However, getting defensive of Outlook is _NOT_ the answer. Educate
those around you as to how to _better_ use Outlook. For, example most worms
root through you address book/contacts and take the linked (mailto:) address
from the e mail field. If you are clever, you build a contact and type their
name in the text note section. You lose the ability to let outlook address
your mail, but so does Nimda :-) USE virus protection. E mail ALL virus
incidents to as many e mail addresses as you are comfortable finding in the
MS sales / marketing page.

   Bite them when they call you at work. Example, today MS called me about
their B Central site for website development because some stooge let them
know I need services. I politely told them "no thanks we are doing a SECURE
site" when he said that MS could do a secure site I said "Oh yeah, I forgot
all about Hotmail (run on BSD)" amd hung up.

BLAME BLAME BLAME BLAME BLAME BLAME OUTLOOK


>Microsoft Outlook *IS* the problem. Blaming it *IS* correct. Removing
>Outlook *IS* the solution.


 >        - Matt



>That's hardly fair.  Some of us use Outlook for a reason (my address is a
>>Spam trap that only lets in what I actually want to read).  I can see
trying
>>to keep out Spam, but blaming Outlook is not the solution.
>>
>>Scott
>>-

Trashing mail programs because of who wrote them.

[William Scott Lockwood III]

Karl,
  Thank you for your well thought out reply - if everyone was so
considerate, we'd never have to get defensive in the first place.  :-)

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl" <ktatgenhorst@earthlink.net>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:51 PM

> Scott,
>
>   Some of us do use Outlook for a reason, ie Corporate Policies
> etc...However, getting defensive of Outlook is _NOT_ the answer. Educate
> those around you as to how to _better_ use Outlook. For, example most
worms
> root through you address book/contacts and take the linked (mailto:)
address
> from the e mail field. If you are clever, you build a contact and type
their
> name in the text note section. You lose the ability to let outlook address
> your mail, but so does Nimda :-) USE virus protection. E mail ALL virus
> incidents to as many e mail addresses as you are comfortable finding in
the
> MS sales / marketing page.
>
>    Bite them when they call you at work. Example, today MS called me about
> their B Central site for website development because some stooge let them
> know I need services. I politely told them "no thanks we are doing a
SECURE
> site" when he said that MS could do a secure site I said "Oh yeah, I
forgot
> all about Hotmail (run on BSD)" amd hung up.

Re: that virus thing....

[David Woodhouse]

matti.aarnio@zmailer.org said:
>   No.  It means the real message originator, invisible because that
>   system apparently does not retain  Received: headers, sent out:
>       From: <Administrator>
>   and VGER was the first machine receiving it, and following the letter
>   of RFC 822 about fully-qualified addresses in visible headers, and
>   qualified a non-qualified one... 

It's too early in the morning for reading RFCs. Does RFC2822 say you should
add your own domain to unqualified addresses in non-local mail, or just 
say that unqualified addresses aren't legal?

If the latter, rejecting the offending mail would seem more appropriate 
than adding '@vger.kernel.org' to it.

Might also be useful to stop any mail with null reverse-path from getting 
to the list - or do we already do that and the ones that slipped through 
couldn't even get that right?

--
dwmw2