Re: A list administation query
* Brian Pack <afcpack@verizon.net> [2005-01-05] :
>
> On Tuesday 04 January 2005 07:23 pm, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On Tuesday 04 January 2005 11:37 am, Felixk Karpfen wrote:
>> > Having lost two mailboxes to the the "Swem-worm flood", I do
>> > not willingly post my true address to any public forum.
>>
>> Munging is considered harmful, get your mail admin to reject viruses the
>> right way.
>>
>> http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful
>> http://ursine.dyndns.org/Rejecting_Viruses_The_Right_Way
>
>this is probably=
>=20
> one of the most important posts I've seen in a long time. Bookmarked those=
>=20
> two links in a heartbeat. Thanks most kindly.
I will read the references too - although I am aware of the debate.
However let me restate my initial statement - just in case it was too
cryptic.
There are no problems with viruses and spam on _my_ computer; the needed
software to handle them is operational.
There were massive problems with the Swem worm on my _ISPs'_ computers.
And they were not alone. Telstra - our national telecommunications
carrier - opted to refund hundreds of thousands of dollars to its
customers due to the havoc that the Swem worm was able to wreak with the
services that Telstra provides.
My own compromise is to use a munged "From:" address and a valid
"Reply-To:" address. But, even so, I would prefer to have the addresses
encrypted if that were doable.
Felix Karpfen
>
> P.S. I like that 'if you munge your address, then the terrorists win' :)
>
> --nextPart2431298.nUBhf6WKom
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
>
>
> --nextPart2431298.nUBhf6WKom--
>
>
--
Felix Karpfen
Public Key 72FDF9DF (DH/DSA)
Reply to: