Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:
"martin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 09:49:50 GMT, Anthony Anson
wrote:

[snip]

This was done
in-house, and PDQ. ISTR it was promised 'soon - tomorrow if you're
lucky' or similar. However, the flow suddenly stopped a couple of
hours
later.

It existed sometime ago elsewhere. It would be amazing if somebody in
house was to implement something from scratch that was readily
available elsewhere.

And even more amazing if they really did it in a couple of hours.

No. Just knowing what to do and how to do it.

I remain a doubting Thomas, but let it be.

Franz

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:
"Anthony Anson" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Wodjer mean? They're killed as they hit the mail servers, so Zetnuts -
that's us - don't have the pleasure of seeing them pile up in our
mailboxen.

That sounds very dangerous. What guarantee do you have that you are not
losing good stuff?

How much good stuff comes with a virus attached?

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

Personally, I'd prefer the unlikely risk of losing the odd e-mail with
an innocently passed-on virus than use up my online time allocation with
several half-hour downloads a day of stuff I'll only delete.

Franz

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 23:23:21 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

Nope. I know exactly what he did, but am not shouting it out for fear of
some little infective oik getting to hear.

I think most people managed to kill Swen. If I wasn't an Agent user I
could have done it on the server.

Automatically?

Yes using filters. I was already doing it manually.



This was done
in-house, and PDQ. ISTR it was promised 'soon - tomorrow if you're
lucky' or similar. However, the flow suddenly stopped a couple of hours
later.

It existed sometime ago elsewhere. It would be amazing if somebody in
house was to implement something from scratch that was readily
available elsewhere.

That depends on

a) how much it cost, and
b) on the implementer
c) just how good it was
d) and just how good a programmer he is. He is. And formidably bright -
you can read by the light of his proximity.

Are you talking about Swen or a normal antivirus running on the ISP's
server?

I'm talking about the latest rash of worms and Trojans.

I don't see any so I don't know which rash you refer to.



Zetnuts no longer get any.

How have they managed to do that?

Wodjer mean? They're killed as they hit the mail servers, so Zetnuts -
that's us - don't have the pleasure of seeing them pile up in our
mailboxen.

I thought he was referring to the ISP, not the users.

He? *NOW* who / what are we talking about?

You!

So whom are you addressing?

Does not compute.

/snip/

You will be telling us next that Zetnet also identifies and tags
e-mail Spam too.

Well does it?

I told you befo it's a criminal act to interfere with
e-communications without the consent of both the recipient and the
sender.

and I told you, that you are talking ********.

Please don't put off other people using a facility, that is readily
available from most good ISPs in UK.

Take it up on uk.net.news.config


In this I don't include the one or two Zetnuts who regularly Wumpus
their HDDs and ran the thing out of curiosity.

HTH

I didn't really need any :-)

Anyone who isn't a Zetnut needs some, if only to direct him to
www.zetnet.com

It's not the only good ISP in the world.

No, but it compares very favourably with any other I've come across,
which is why I've stayed with them for more than seven years.

And, be it said, never found the need to subscribe to any other.

but then you believe it's illegal to have your Spam identified for you
by your server.
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:34:26 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

Yes. We do get to notice such benefits, especially as many of us use a
system of downloaded (and uploaded) packets for offline processing. You
tend to get a bit ipssde-fof if you receive twenty or thirty Svens in a
download innit.

Only 20 or 30? I am down to around 50 from about 150-200 a day. Swens
that is.

Haven't seen one for - well, actually, I don't think I've seen one of
them at all - I think the rot was stopped before that particular beauty
was released into the wild.

How do you mean? Franz and I have both been plagued with them, as have
most of my colleagues. I think it's probably the nastiest yet.
--
Martin

I`ve never had that amount of them. Maybe my filters have been good
enough to keep it out.

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:59:05 GMT, Christopher Norton
wrote:

How do you mean? Franz and I have both been plagued with them, as have
most of my colleagues. I think it's probably the nastiest yet.
--
Martin

I`ve never had that amount of them. Maybe my filters have been good
enough to keep it out.

I suspect it depends on who had Swen and one's e-mail address in an OE
address list. Initially most of mine were supposedly sent from
Microsoft. For the last couple of weeks most are supposedly from
Italy, France and the southern hemisphere. Maybe 10% have been
supposedly from UK. The flow is slowly decreasing. I am down to around
a hundred a day now. I haven't actually received these viruses for a
month now. I get a short message, including the supposed poster, from
my ISP each time it intercepts a virus.
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

I told you befo it's a criminal act to interfere with
e-communications without the consent of both the recipient and the
sender.

Then my ISP is a criminal. He is interfering with the spam which is
intended for me. I asked him to do so, but I am as certain as I can be that
he did not ask the spammers for their permission to interfere on my behalf.
He has succeeded in reducing the spam I receive in my inbox to between 1 and
2% of what it used to be. He has also succeded in removing Swen-like
attacks to zero.

Swen is different: you don't have to open the interpersonal
correspondence to kill it.

Intercepting and scanning personal mail is a criminal offence unless the
recipient is your employee and usimg your system to receive his/her
mail.

This was enacted before spam became a real problem, but the law applies
in principle.

It would be up to the DPP to initiate proceedings on a complaint.
Probably, with regard to spam, in the admittedly unlikely event of it
going to court the beaks would find in favour of your ISP.

Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some (if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

And even more amazing if they really did it in a couple of hours.

No. Just knowing what to do and how to do it.

I remain a doubting Thomas, but let it be.

The man himself (a director of Zetnet) comes and chats in the (Zet)newsgroups.

He said he'd try, he said what he was going to do, and shortly
afterwards - bo more worms.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

/pedant

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from Christopher Norton contains these words:

I`ve never had that amount of them. Maybe my filters have been good
enough to keep it out.

Paul wrote an ickle script that zaps them on the swerver.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

I told you befo it's a criminal act to interfere with
e-communications without the consent of both the recipient and the
sender.

and I told you, that you are talking ********.

And I said that I wasn't arguing with you, I was telling you. Zetnet
took legal advice.

Please don't put off other people using a facility, that is readily
available from most good ISPs in UK.

It isn't the subscriber who is committing the act. How can that put
anyone off?

Take it up on uk.net.news.config

And they will do what? Overrule Parliament?

/snip/

It's not the only good ISP in the world.

No, but it compares very favourably with any other I've come across,
which is why I've stayed with them for more than seven years.

And, be it said, never found the need to subscribe to any other.

but then you believe it's illegal to have your Spam identified for you
by your server.

No. You suggested that. I never said anything about identification.

(But it's not a bad idea, and Andy could write a simple filter to kill
anything so identified. Thanks for that....)

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

I suspect it depends on who had Swen and one's e-mail address in an OE
address list. Initially most of mine were supposedly sent from
Microsoft. For the last couple of weeks most are supposedly from
Italy, France and the southern hemisphere. Maybe 10% have been
supposedly from UK. The flow is slowly decreasing. I am down to around
a hundred a day now. I haven't actually received these viruses for a
month now. I get a short message, including the supposed poster, from
my ISP each time it intercepts a virus.

The latest bots scan kept mail *AND* news in Outpuke and Outpuke Depress
for e-mail addresses, and some software used by spammers generates
likely addresses and then fires a batch like buckshot at an ISP.

Their reasoning (assuming they are capable of it) really puzzle me: they
dot their subject lines with ^ = & ? etc to defeat killfiles - anyone
who uses a killfile and receiving one is hardly going to read it.......

I just KF'd *=* (where * is any character or no character) and reduced
the number of filters needed at a stroke. I can't think that I'll get
many genuine e-mails with the equals sign in.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:54:17 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

I told you befo it's a criminal act to interfere with
e-communications without the consent of both the recipient and the
sender.

Then my ISP is a criminal. He is interfering with the spam which is
intended for me. I asked him to do so, but I am as certain as I can be that
he did not ask the spammers for their permission to interfere on my behalf.
He has succeeded in reducing the spam I receive in my inbox to between 1 and
2% of what it used to be. He has also succeded in removing Swen-like
attacks to zero.

Swen is different: you don't have to open the interpersonal
correspondence to kill it.

Intercepting and scanning personal mail is a criminal offence unless the
recipient is your employee and usimg your system to receive his/her
mail.

Yes, so you insist saying. BT are breaking the law on a vast scale
then.


This was enacted before spam became a real problem, but the law applies
in principle.

It would be up to the DPP to initiate proceedings on a complaint.
Probably, with regard to spam, in the admittedly unlikely event of it
going to court the beaks would find in favour of your ISP.

Your understanding of Spam law is utterly wrong, but don't let that
upset you.

You still confuse the law on telephone tapping and mail interception
without the recipients knowledge, with an ISP offering a service at
the request of the recipient.


Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some (if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

Zetnet website doesn't offer any antivirus service any idea why?

Can you explain how Zetnet tags Spam e-mail for somebody I know?
Another Zetnet perhaps?
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:56:11 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

And even more amazing if they really did it in a couple of hours.

No. Just knowing what to do and how to do it.

I remain a doubting Thomas, but let it be.

The man himself (a director of Zetnet) comes and chats in the (Zet)newsgroups.

He said he'd try, he said what he was going to do, and shortly
afterwards - bo more worms.

There was at least one newsgroups that explained how. Is it
conceivable that he subscribes to it?
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:02:38 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

I told you befo it's a criminal act to interfere with
e-communications without the consent of both the recipient and the
sender.

and I told you, that you are talking ********.

And I said that I wasn't arguing with you, I was telling you. Zetnet
took legal advice.

You omitted to say what they were told.

Please don't put off other people using a facility, that is readily
available from most good ISPs in UK.

It isn't the subscriber who is committing the act. How can that put
anyone off?

Take it up on uk.net.news.config

And they will do what? Overrule Parliament?

No, UK Usenet committee members will tell you just how wrong you are.

I consulted them when you first trotted out your idea of the law on
Spam. Franz has seen the answer.


/snip/

It's not the only good ISP in the world.

No, but it compares very favourably with any other I've come across,
which is why I've stayed with them for more than seven years.

And, be it said, never found the need to subscribe to any other.

but then you believe it's illegal to have your Spam identified for you
by your server.

No. You suggested that. I never said anything about identification.

You said very clearly that an ISP was breaking the law by even looking
at the mail. How can he identify it without even looking at it?


(But it's not a bad idea, and Andy could write a simple filter to kill
anything so identified.

A monkey could write such a filter. It's identifying spam that is the
clever part.



Thanks for that....)


don't mention it.
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:11:38 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

I suspect it depends on who had Swen and one's e-mail address in an OE
address list. Initially most of mine were supposedly sent from
Microsoft. For the last couple of weeks most are supposedly from
Italy, France and the southern hemisphere. Maybe 10% have been
supposedly from UK. The flow is slowly decreasing. I am down to around
a hundred a day now. I haven't actually received these viruses for a
month now. I get a short message, including the supposed poster, from
my ISP each time it intercepts a virus.

The latest bots scan kept mail *AND* news in Outpuke and Outpuke Depress
for e-mail addresses, and some software used by spammers generates
likely addresses and then fires a batch like buckshot at an ISP.

Their reasoning (assuming they are capable of it) really puzzle me: they
dot their subject lines with ^ = & ? etc to defeat killfiles - anyone
who uses a killfile and receiving one is hardly going to read it.......

I just KF'd *=* (where * is any character or no character) and reduced
the number of filters needed at a stroke. I can't think that I'll get
many genuine e-mails with the equals sign in.

checking for an exclamation mark in the subject is good for about 40%
--
Martin