On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:13:43 -0400, Steve Weigold <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

><BIG Sigh>
>
>OK.. I'm going to try to explain this ONE more time, just because I'm
trying
>to defend the fact that I am not a clueless newbie.

For the record, I didn't call you one, nor anyone else did, AFAIK.

>
>> >Steve-
>> >it may not be a List member - this worm is working around and about and
>> >can use any email Id of current or even past member to even anyone that
>> >may have your email Id on their puter-

I think Ken wrote this.  I am on the road in a hotel now.  Not worth
my time looking up the ID.

>> Steve,
>>
>> Ken is absolutely correct on the above.
>>
>> In spite of your careful "research", your analysis (to Mika) was
>> flawed.  Just becaues there was an address from someone on this list
>> doesn't necessarily mean that the list member sent it OR that list
>> member had the virus.  It could be NEITHER.

This seems to confirm that Ken wrote it.  I wrote the above.


>I did not get a bounce from an email address for anyone subscribed to this
>list.  I never have, and I never said I did.  What I SAID was that I got
>emails RELATED to this list.  Emails that were consistent with someone who
>perhaps had this list or emails from this list in their mail program.

You cited the entirety of what I posted, here and below, after your
sig!  When did I say any of what you alleged I said?

>
>You like the archive feature Bob.  Go reread my post.

I don't need to.

>I provided examples
>there too.
>
>-> 016511 03/08/21 19:03 73  OT - Someone on the list has a virus
>
>Here is my final example.  I got this email TODAY.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>---
>Please see the attached file for details.
>Unknown command - "PLEASE". Try HELP.
>
>Summary of resource utilization
>-------------------------------
> CPU time:        0.000 sec
> Overhead CPU:    0.000 sec
> CPU model:         450MHz Pentium III (256M)
> Job origin:      [log in to unmask]
>----------------------------------------------
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>-----
>
>I HAVE NOT sent any commands to the raven server.  The virus, WHOEVER has
>it, spoofed the to address as the raven sever, and the from, as MINE.  Who
>else, besides someone on this list would have BOTH my address and the
>raven server address on their PC?

You STILL DIDN'T GET THE POINT, from Ken, me, and even Chuck!

It doesn't have to anyone on this list.  It is POSSIBLE that someone
"spoofed" you.  It could even have been that "Robert Lung" chicken
shit asshole.   But your exhibit substantiated NOTHING for your case.

Re-read what ALL others said about your episode.  The only clueless
one there was Lee.


>I rest my case.  I am not a clueless idiot,

You should simply "rest".  You had no case, and still has no case.

Nobody called you a "clueless idiot".   Not even me!  :-)
Mika did call you a dumbfuck, not so much for this but for your
top posting, I recall.



>and it wasn't a warning.  I know
>better.  My logic is also not flawed.  If you still don't get it don't
>worry, rest assured, I won't post anything else about it.  This has
already
>wasted much more of my time than deleting the bounce and incoming virus
>messages ever had.  I'll also certainly remember that the next time I
>consider making a reasonable request to the list.
>
>Steve


ElPezNeuvo.

>
>
>
>>
>> That's just the way that particular worm worked.  All it needed was
>> some email address from somewhere (anywhere) and can use that email
>> address to spread the virus.  In that sense, the readers are better
>> off learning ABOUT that particular virus from the knowledgeable
>> (official) sources (as Ken and I apparently did), rather depend on
>> some warning from someone who doesn't have the whole story --
>> honorable INTENTION notwithstanding.
>>
>> >I have had 42 emails with the .pif attachment today alone- most from
>> >Russia :)
>> >
>> >Regards,.
>> >Ken
>>
>> That was probably because Ken corresponded with folks who corresponded
>> with Russians, and Norton and Symantec are probably not as popular
>> there as Popov or Popeye.  :)
>>
>>
>> >Steve Weigold wrote:
>>
>> < snipped.  I read what you wrote.  >
>>
>>
>> Bottom Line:
>>
>> It's ANOTHER GOOD REASON why one should read Scuba-SE and newsgroups
>> from the ARCHIVES:
>>
>> It's virus free;  it's always IN CONTEXT;  in chronological order;
>> and even IDIOTS like Lee wouldn't need to use a "blocked list" to
>> block anyone's email because all anyone needs to do is to see the
>> SUBJECT and AUTHOR and leave it unread.  That way at least a reader
>> can find out (anytime) what the post is about should he decided to
>> flame it (as Lee often does, but depend only snipets of what
>> others quoted, usually OUT OF CONTEXT).
>>
>> The bottom Line is very much ON TOPIC, as long as you are, or
>> aspire to be, a responsible netizen reading posts from a LISTSERV
>> list that is archived.
>>
>> -- Bob.
>>