Is anyone else being deluged with Virus/Worm email messages?
--
================================

Me too - 2000 per day.

Terrorist attack or just another up-and-coming Bill Gates?

G4FGQ, UK

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:01:51 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Is anyone else being deluged with Virus/Worm email messages?
--
================================

Me too - 2000 per day.

Terrorist attack or just another up-and-coming Bill Gates?

G4FGQ, UK


Me too, 49 yesterday and 80 today.

Walt, W2DU

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Is anyone else being deluged with Virus/Worm email messages?
--
================================

Me too - 2000 per day.

Terrorist attack or just another up-and-coming Bill Gates?

G4FGQ, UK




I don't recall anything in Gates' career that's equivalent to the present
worm attack.
Do you have any factual backup for your off-hand slander?

Ed
WB6WSN

Ed Price wrote:
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...

Is anyone else being deluged with Virus/Worm email messages?
--

================================

Me too - 2000 per day.

Terrorist attack or just another up-and-coming Bill Gates?

G4FGQ, UK





I don't recall anything in Gates' career that's equivalent to the present
worm attack.
Do you have any factual backup for your off-hand slander?

He isn't responsible for this.

But he IS responsible for the abysmally poor software his company
writes. It is a litany of flaws.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ed Price wrote:
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...

Is anyone else being deluged with Virus/Worm email messages?
--

================================

Me too - 2000 per day.

Terrorist attack or just another up-and-coming Bill Gates?

G4FGQ, UK





I don't recall anything in Gates' career that's equivalent to the
present
worm attack.
Do you have any factual backup for your off-hand slander?

He isn't responsible for this.

But he IS responsible for the abysmally poor software his company
writes. It is a litany of flaws.

- Mike KB3EIA -


My point is that you should save your litanies for the correct occasions.
You can't respond to every net problem with a half-ass reference to
"Redmond" or "Gates".

In point of fact, this IS a terrorist attack. Although software should be
robust, the majority of your ire should be directed toward the terrorist
attacker.

Ed
WB6WSN

"Ed Price" wrote in message

I don't recall anything in Gates' career that's equivalent to the present
worm attack.
Do you have any factual backup for your off-hand slander?

Ed
WB6WSN

Well, as far as I'm concerned, he had as much hand in it as anyone. If
his company would quit selling reader software with enough holes to
qualify as swiss cheese, many of these macro viruses wouldn't have a
leg to stand on. I've had 100's of server returns accusing me of
spreading viruses, and also that I'm running Microsoft Outlook Express
6.00.2600.0000. But this is not the case. I use old bulletproof
netscape 3.1 to read mail. These viruses are a non issue to me. Why
are they an issue to a software that is supposed to be a step up from
the ancient reader I'm using? If everyone would quit running Billware
6.00.2600.0000, we could nip this macro virus thing in the bud.
Probably would stop 90% of it overnight. Heck, with all the latest
holes in these new win OS's they are spitting out, I'm temped to stay
with win98 a few more years. MK

"Mark Keith" wrote in message
om...
"Ed Price" wrote in message

I don't recall anything in Gates' career that's equivalent to the
present
worm attack.
Do you have any factual backup for your off-hand slander?

Ed
WB6WSN

Well, as far as I'm concerned, he had as much hand in it as anyone. If
his company would quit selling reader software with enough holes to
qualify as swiss cheese, many of these macro viruses wouldn't have a
leg to stand on. I've had 100's of server returns accusing me of
spreading viruses, and also that I'm running Microsoft Outlook Express
6.00.2600.0000. But this is not the case. I use old bulletproof
netscape 3.1 to read mail. These viruses are a non issue to me. Why
are they an issue to a software that is supposed to be a step up from
the ancient reader I'm using? If everyone would quit running Billware
6.00.2600.0000, we could nip this macro virus thing in the bud.
Probably would stop 90% of it overnight. Heck, with all the latest
holes in these new win OS's they are spitting out, I'm temped to stay
with win98 a few more years. MK

In other words, nothing factual, just "as far as I'm concerned." Thank you
for your rant.

Ed
WB6WSN

On 20 Sep 2003 21:45:27 -0700, (Mark Keith) wrote:

"Ed Price" wrote in message

I don't recall anything in Gates' career that's equivalent to the present
worm attack.
Do you have any factual backup for your off-hand slander?

Ed
WB6WSN

Well, as far as I'm concerned, he had as much hand in it as anyone. If
his company would quit selling reader software with enough holes to
qualify as swiss cheese, many of these macro viruses wouldn't have a
leg to stand on. I've had 100's of server returns accusing me of
spreading viruses, and also that I'm running Microsoft Outlook Express
6.00.2600.0000. But this is not the case. I use old bulletproof
netscape 3.1 to read mail. These viruses are a non issue to me. Why

I would respectfully suggest that you upgrade to one of the later
versions of Netscape. 3.1 is about as open to giving out your
information as any produced.

I run Netscape, Mozilla (slightly different but Netscape used a
Mozilla core) Thunderbird, and Pearl.

are they an issue to a software that is supposed to be a step up from
the ancient reader I'm using? If everyone would quit running Billware
6.00.2600.0000, we could nip this macro virus thing in the bud.

If every one would practice safe computing even Bill Ware would work
well.
Probably would stop 90% of it overnight. Heck, with all the latest

The users alone could prevent more than that. Remember that in *most*
cases they worms and viruses require the user to run them. Only
recently have the true viruses that run when you read them become much
of a problem.
holes in these new win OS's they are spitting out, I'm temped to stay

It's not the OS. IT's the mail and news readers and even then it's
more of a problem with the default settings. It's also a lack of
firewalls and virus checkers.

If people would just turn off java, HTML, the automated entry of
addresses into their address books, turn off the ability to
automatically run macros when opening a document, and not run
attachments until they verify who ever sent it did so on purpose.
there would be few successful viruses.

It's a knee jerk reaction to blame the OS (which do have lots of holes
in them), but in reality the blame for well over 90% of the problem
comes directly from us...the users.
How many people have you heard state that "they" only open attachments
from people they know. That virus, or worm had to get the address
form some where and it was in some ones address book.
with win98 a few more years. MK

The new ones are no worse than 98, or 98 SE.
And the early versions of Netscape were terrible for leaking
information about the user.

Computer People forget that over 90% of computer users are clueless.

Roger K8RI (Retired computer systems project manager)

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Roger Halstead wrote in message

I would respectfully suggest that you upgrade to one of the later
versions of Netscape. 3.1 is about as open to giving out your
information as any produced.

I only use it to read mail. I don't browse with it. Besides, thats a
different issue than the micro viruses being discussed. P.S I have
newer versions of netscape. KInd of like playing cards. Take your
pick.


It's a knee jerk reaction to blame the OS (which do have lots of holes
in them), but in reality the blame for well over 90% of the problem
comes directly from us...the users.

No, it's not a knee jerk reaction. The OS security problems I refer to
have nothing to do with the discussed macro viruses. They are
altogether different problems. Just as serious though. Probably more
so.



The new ones are no worse than 98, or 98 SE.

They sure are no better. I would say worse....But, it's not really
important. I don't have any trouble with any of these worms, viruses,
etc. So anything I say can hardly be called a knee jerk reaction. I
have plenty of unmolested time to think about it. MK