Re: The latest round of antivirus bouncebacks
On Thursday 11 April 2002 09:58 pm, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Matt Frazer wrote:
> > This surprises me in that other than the blanket definition of, Email I
> > don't want to see, I do not understand how a mail server here replying to
> > a message sender that it detected a virus in an attachment could be seen
> > as Spam, or unsolicited commercial content.
> I can. I don't see the purpose of those messages beyond
> self-aggrandizement on the part of the package creator. "Look at me!
> $COMPANY Brand email virus software found a virus, and I want to tell
> the world!" I don't report it as spam, though, since it's fairly
> obvious it's just some clueless admin's server (mis)configured.
this is moving into a whole different area of dicourse, but i've always
wondered how it is that a corporation could accumulate legal rights
equivalent to those accorded to an individual and yet not be excoriated for
expressions of aggrandizement that would be regarded as repugnant if
expressed by an individual.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org