Re: Windows Virus using group posters

From: Donald Tees (donald_tees_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 08/11/04 

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:56:05 -0400

Michael Wojcik wrote:
>
> I'm not concerned about having my address blocked by idiots. The less
> I communicate with idiots, the better.
>
> I've been posting on Usenet since 1991. I've always used a valid email
> address; for the past few years, each of my messages has included two,
> in fact, since I use my personal address for the reply-to header and my
> corporate one appears in my signature. I've yet to have a message I
> sent bounced because some sysadmin blocked it, or to hear that some
> message I sent was black-holed for similar reasons.
>
> The Internet is indeed to some extent a cooperative venture, and I
> cooperate by following the intent of the RFCs, one of which is that
> Usenet posters will provide a return address for emailed replies.
> Many posters can't deal with the "avalanche of spam", as it is
> popularly known, that results from posting with a valid address, and
> so omit it. I'm willing to tolerate that, but I will not entertain
> the idea that I have some ethical obligation to do the same.
>
> In any event, it's moot in my case, and in the case of anyone else
> who's posted on Usenet since 1997 with a valid address, since
> spammers can easily harvest those addresses from Google and the like
> regardless of how we post in the future.
>
> We've had the solution to forged email for years: signed email, whether
> that's S/MIME or a PGP derivative or what have you. When people care
> enough to start using signed email in significant numbers, I'll get a
> personal certificate (or, more likely, Micro Focus will get me one)
> and the problem will be resolved - except for idiots, and again that's
> not my problem.
>
> I believe I've more than done my share to assist in improving Internet
> security. My systems are firewalled and regularly scanned for a
> variety of malware. They're up to date on patches. The OSes and
> applications are hardened insofar as they can be configured to be. I
> avoid known-insecure software where possible. I follow a number of
> computer security discussions. I think I've got a nice karmic head-
> start over J. Random Usenet Poster With A Munged Address, thank you
> very much.
>

Well said.

I have also used my real address for years, and cannot see a downside
for an educated user. Granted, people that open everything that arrives
in the mail may have problems, but then people that have sex with
strangers have the same problem. I also do not use a virus checker ...
I use Linux for mail. IMO, the Linux system and my own brain are better
than any virus checker on the market.

Donald

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bill Simmons Sounds Off Against The NFL
    ... "And your opinion is so important to me." ... "And no...you're little rant won't stop me from posting." ... "And like all idiots you can't even take your own advise." ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: "New Looks at the Fields of Death for Jews"
    ... What is the point with exposing demagogues, weasels, liars and idiots ... among Usenet posters? ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Re: California anti-idle Nazis
    ... And I don't even know why I bother some ... I've been posting to this NG for years now. ... A few posters have identified themselves as idiots in short order, ... If we consider the posters he has additionally alienated in mtr, ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: GOOGLE and USENET
    ... groups must be prepared to accept users OTHER than the "net addicts". ... If idiots can't figure out how to use caps lock, ... USENET GROUP nor do I intend to! ... You're reading this, you're posting here, you are on usenet. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.apps)
  • Re: Which is the most stupid cycling newsgroup?
    ... ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS! ... invested/spent/wasted enough time on the prior posts. ... Since the old Usenet tradition of "snipping" has disappeared top posting ...
    (rec.bicycles.misc)
Loading