--


"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
I was under the naive impression that these newsgroup forums were
monitored by
a group moderator whose duties included removing viruses, spam, etc. I
protect
my emails with programs that look at messages on my server before I
download
them to my computer. I do not have such a recourse with the newsgroup
messages.
It's very scary to use the newsgroups, even though I am protected every
way I know
how.

TOM KAN PA wrote:

Perhaps it was the moderator that warned us.

Wil

--


"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
I was under the naive impression that these newsgroup forums were
monitored by
a group moderator whose duties included removing viruses, spam, etc. I
protect
my emails with programs that look at messages on my server before I
download
them to my computer. I do not have such a recourse with the newsgroup
messages.
It's very scary to use the newsgroups, even though I am protected every
way I know
how.

TOM KAN PA wrote:

Perhaps it was the moderator that warned us.

Wil

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:53:11 -0400, Wil wrote:

Perhaps it was the moderator that warned us.

Wil


This group has no moderator. Not all groups have one.

First, anyone who couldn't figure out that it was spam of *some* sort, viral or
not, shouldn't be on the net.

Second, anyone who can't tell an executable file from a picture shouldn't be on
the net.

oh don't pick on Tom, he's just warning us! He's a staple of this
newgroup!!!
madgardener

--
Humankind has not woven the web of life.
We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
All things are bound together.
All things connect." Chief Seattle
"Jim Shaffer, Jr." wrote in message
...
First, anyone who couldn't figure out that it was spam of *some* sort,
viral or
not, shouldn't be on the net.

Second, anyone who can't tell an executable file from a picture shouldn't
be on
the net.

In article ,
"Jim Shaffer, Jr." wrote:

First, anyone who couldn't figure out that it was spam of *some* sort, viral
or
not, shouldn't be on the net.

Second, anyone who can't tell an executable file from a picture shouldn't be
on
the net.

Jim I assume you may be having a bad day. Lot's of folks purchase
computer systems via price. Some come with defaults set to open access.
Not their fault.
I'd suggest doing a search on the author of anyone you do not know
first before clicking on anything. Actually I'd Grokker the author.
Meanwhile Tech support has to make a living too.

A heads up from Tom does no harm.

William (Bill)

--
Zone 5 S Jersey USA Shade Earth sometimes.
There is atleast one word misspelled deliberately in the above post. )
http://www.oxymorons.info/ lots of word fun!

In article ,
William Wagner wrote:

Nice little program "Little Snitch" shareware lets me know about
anyone trying to contact my machine. For Mac's but PC folks may have
something similar.
William (Bill)

Now back to garden stuff.

--
Zone 5 S Jersey USA Shade Earth sometimes.
There is atleast one word misspelled deliberately in the above post. )
http://www.oxymorons.info/ lots of word fun!

there is also one that announces Schwarzenegger's suicide - it too contains
a virus.

"TOM KAN PA" wrote in message
...
Reports of bin Laden's death are viral lure

Beware of clicking

By INQUIRER staff: Saturday 24 July 2004, 18:46

NEWS.COM and other wires report that sensational messages spreading on
USENET
and by email which flash news of the death of Osama bin Laden's death are
really lures to trap the unwary into downloading a Trojan horse.

According to news.com, the message purports to have a picture of the
arch-terrorist committing suicide. But click on the picture and before you
know
where you are you've got an infection. µ

In article ,
Jim Shaffer, Jr. wrote:
First, anyone who couldn't figure out that it was spam of *some* sort, viral or
not, shouldn't be on the net.

Second, anyone who can't tell an executable file from a picture shouldn't be on
the net.


The latter may not be obvious at all. I use a Linux box and read mail/news
in ascii only, so when an html message pops up I end up having to peruse
the html code. Doing that on a couple of spams has been interesting. In
one set, the link has one name but the ref has another. In another variant,
the name is obfuscated by a lot of white space (e.g.

"funnypicture.jpg .exe" with the last
part overwritten. Thus, even people who know the difference between
an executable file and a picture can be fooled...

billo

In article ,
Jim Shaffer, Jr. wrote:
First, anyone who couldn't figure out that it was spam of *some* sort, viral or
not, shouldn't be on the net.

Second, anyone who can't tell an executable file from a picture shouldn't be on
the net.


The latter may not be obvious at all. I use a Linux box and read mail/news
in ascii only, so when an html message pops up I end up having to peruse
the html code. Doing that on a couple of spams has been interesting. In
one set, the link has one name but the ref has another. In another variant,
the name is obfuscated by a lot of white space (e.g.

"funnypicture.jpg .exe" with the last
part overwritten. Thus, even people who know the difference between
an executable file and a picture can be fooled...

billo