RE: virus attachments
>From: jonah [mailto:jonahgoldstein@...]
>Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 9:47 AM
>Subject: virus attachments
>I've been receiving 10-20 emails from the vim mailing list everyday
>Mail Virus Protection marks as "Alert: Virus Detected but Not Cleaned."
>everyone getting these? Is there some way we can stop them?I have to agree with this plaint! My sys.admins are getting pretty
peeved about the 300+ notices that an infected email was received from
this list and then disinfected. This is a lot of stuff they have to
look at which they shouldn't have to.
I can't see any reason why anti-virus protection shouldn't be applied to
all emails coming into the list -- and infected ones being sidelined for
later action, should it become necessary -- rather than being
proliferated through the list to all its recipients.
Granted, recipients' systems should be virus-protected themselves, but:
a) neophyte users may not have such protection
b) there is no reason we should baptize them by fire, as it
by passing along infected emails to them
c) there is no upside to pissing off corporations whose
choose to avail themselves of this fine informational
What would be involved in stripping out viral emails? Is there a
downside? Shouldn't whatever system runs the list also be protected?
Does letting them through (as happens now) infect the archives, as well?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Winn" <matthew@...>
To: "vim" <vim@...>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: virus attachments
> Not everyone can _get_ low-cost, high-speed access. It takes me about
> half an hour to read the Vim and Vim-dev lists each day. On a dialup
> account it would take about two minutes to download a complete day's
> messages. Reading the same content on a web forum would take longer
> than reading email (because there's no single-key-read feature for the
> web) and would require being online for all that time: call it a total
> of 40 minutes. I don't think any medium which increases the cost by a
> factor of 20 is all that useful, and it _certainly_ discriminates in
> favour of those like you who are able to spend as much time as they
> want online.
> And that doesn't take into account the time taken to research and write
> replies. If I want to post to a list I take time to check my facts
> first. On technical lists like this I might want to try out some code.
> I'm good at regular expressions and sometimes respond to regexp questions
> here, but to do that I have to try out the expressions before I post
> them. If I was reading this list on a web forum using a dialup line I'd
> be paying for all that time. For dialup users a web forum encourages
> hasty and poorly thought out responses.
> > I agree that no discussion "should" be restricted to the rich, or the
> > from "developed" countries, ... or those who speak English more or less
> > fluently... but there is a lot of difference between "should" and
> When I compare a web forum with a mailing list or newsgroup covering the
> same subject matter I invariably find that the web forum has a lower
> diversity. The overwhelming majority of posters are from places where
> internet access is cheap, and the age range of posters shows a strong
> bias towards children. On mailing lists and newsgroups the type of
> internet access you can afford or obtain doesn't matter: everyone is
> able to contribute to the group on an equal footing, whether they're
> lucky enough to have a multi-megabit link provided by their employer or
> are stuck with a 28K dialup link in some country where the power supply
> is only reliable for 12 hours a day.
My point (one of them) was that someone on a 28K dialup in a country where
the power supply is not reliable more than half the time, would not be on an
equal footing with you and I, even if using the same OS and the same client
to read the Vim mailing lists, especially if he also got as much spam as I
do -- I don't know about you, but I get about twice as much spam as there
are postings on the main Vim list.
> The web has many uses but it's wrong to suppose that it can replace all
> other forms of communication on the internet. Some things are better
> done by email, some by usenet and some by chat. The web is at its best
> for communications which fit the same sort of pattern as television or
> radio: a primarily one-way stream of information broadcast to recipients
> who aren't expected to respond. It's not the best solution for a many-
> sided discussion.
> Matthew Winn (matthew@...)
What is right or wrong in terms of Internet access? There are even "webmail"
servers, which provide http access to mail. IMHO they won't displace
POP/SMTP client applications; but does that make them "wrong"? What I regard
as "right" is whatever provides the most diversity, the most freedom of
choice for the user; the most ease of use also, which implies diversity
since different users have different preferences.