Hi, just verifying email, enjoy the attached file.
Incase someone was stupid enough to open the attachment, and run the exe,
DON'T DO IT.
<McAfee>
/Music.exe
Found the W32/Music@M trojan !!!
</McAfee>
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, it was written:
> Received: ([email protected]) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
> id <S268251AbRG3BAh>; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:00:37 -0400
> Received: ([email protected]) by vger.kernel.org
> id <S268250AbRG3BA2>; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:00:28 -0400
> Received: from cx852567-a.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com ([24.5.1.87]:30468 "HELO
> localhost") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id <S268249AbRG3BAO>;
> Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:00:14 -0400
> From: "Mailing Server" <>
> To: "Mailing list" <>
> Subject: Test mail
> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 17:20:08 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> boundary="--------"
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.0
> Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> Sender: [email protected]
> Precedence: bulk
> X-Mailing-List: [email protected]
> Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing
>
> Hi, just verifying email, enjoy the attached file.
>
At 23:20 29/07/2001, Mailing Server wrote:
>Hi, just verifying email, enjoy the attached file.
Would it be possible to have lkml setup to filter out this kind of crap?!?
It had no valid email addresses as From: nor To:...
And if anyone running Windows without an anti virus checker for email
didn't notice, the zipped attachment had a virus in it...
Cheers,
Anton
--
"Nothing succeeds like success." - Alexandre Dumas
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
On 29 Jul 2001 21:50:22 -0400, God wrote:
> Incase someone was stupid enough to open the attachment, and run the exe,
> DON'T DO IT.
I'm not even sure what Wine settings I should use...
/me runs
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 23:20 29/07/2001, Mailing Server wrote:
> >Hi, just verifying email, enjoy the attached file.
>
> Would it be possible to have lkml setup to filter out this kind of crap?!?
IIRC lkml already has pretty strict filters.
However, you cannot have your filters prepared for
any random thing. Eventually something will get
through.
It seems that this month's something just got through.
such is life,
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to [email protected] (spam digging piggy)
My solution to 99.9% of the trojan/virus problems:
I don't run Windows, and I don't enable Java/Javascript for mail, news,
and web sites (unless I trust the site, I MUST view it, and it requires
Java/Javascript).
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
UNIX Admin II/Network Security
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
http://www.akamai.com
It's not solution (ex. I like Windows as workstation because of too buggy
and inconvenient X, W2k does not crash at all and have much more convenient
interface. A lot of people use Linux only on servers and connecting to it
using SSH or smth like that), but someone should be moron to run something
like that in zip-file.
Best regards,
Alexander mailto:[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------
Let's start the war, said Muggy
------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul G. Allen" <[email protected]>
To: <unlisted-recipients:>; <no To-header on input>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Test mail
> My solution to 99.9% of the trojan/virus problems:
>
> I don't run Windows, and I don't enable Java/Javascript for mail, news,
> and web sites (unless I trust the site, I MUST view it, and it requires
> Java/Javascript).
>
> PGA
>
> --
> Paul G. Allen
> UNIX Admin II/Network Security
> Akamai Technologies, Inc.
> http://www.akamai.com
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Well The e-mail looks like it may be a variation on SirCam or Code Red
(I could be wrong). It appears to have its own mailer attached (from
what I saw in the header - I have not opened the attached .zip) and it
came from:
cx852567-a.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com
Oceanside, California, USA (about 30 miles North of me).
If this is someone on this list (I'm not about to search all the headers
of all the mail in my mailbox to find who it is) - and I believe it very
well may be - then it's time to re-install Windows.
(Oh, and I wouldn't use MS Oulook anymore, and be careful with Netscape
mail as well.)
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
UNIX Admin II/Network Security
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
http://www.akamai.com
Hi Paul,
I forwarded the message to a Trend Micro based smtp Viruswall
which reported it as the TROJ_MUSIC.B virus. Trend reports
it as being a non-destructive, low-risk virus that plays a
tune (taps?) when activated.
Even a low-risk virus can be a pain to exorcise, I hope that
no one here was infected.
Regards,
Lew Wolfgang
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Paul G. Allen wrote:
> Well The e-mail looks like it may be a variation on SirCam or Code Red
> (I could be wrong). It appears to have its own mailer attached (from
> what I saw in the header - I have not opened the attached .zip) and it
> came from:
>
> cx852567-a.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com
>
> Oceanside, California, USA (about 30 miles North of me).
Hi Rik.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>> At 23:20 29/07/2001, Mailing Server wrote:
>>>Hi, just verifying email, enjoy the attached file.
>> Would it be possible to have lkml setup to filter out this kind of
>> crap?!?
> IIRC lkml already has pretty strict filters.
>
> However, you cannot have your filters prepared for
> any random thing. Eventually something will get
> through.
>
> It seems that this month's something just got through.
Surely it should be simple to check that each piece of mail has a from
address in it, and either kill any that doesn't, or at least plug in
the envelope from address in its place?
Best wishes from Riley.
Lew Wolfgang wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I forwarded the message to a Trend Micro based smtp Viruswall
> which reported it as the TROJ_MUSIC.B virus. Trend reports
> it as being a non-destructive, low-risk virus that plays a
> tune (taps?) when activated.
>
> Even a low-risk virus can be a pain to exorcise, I hope that
> no one here was infected.
>
Music anyone? ;-)
--
Paul G. Allen
UNIX Admin II/Network Security
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
http://www.akamai.com
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Paul G. Allen wrote:
> Well The e-mail looks like it may be a variation on SirCam or Code Red
> (I could be wrong). It appears to have its own mailer attached (from
> what I saw in the header - I have not opened the attached .zip) and it
> came from:
It got caught by my AMaViS scan - apparently it's Worm.Music.
Erm, appologise to everyone if it send the alert to the list - it
sends warning to the message sender as well...I think I might need to do
some modification to how it picks the person to warn.
--
Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther
[email protected]
http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 10:29:45AM +0400, Alexander V. Bilichenko wrote:
> It's not solution (ex. I like Windows as workstation because of too buggy
> and inconvenient X, W2k does not crash at all and have much more convenient
> interface. A lot of people use Linux only on servers and connecting to it
> using SSH or smth like that), but someone should be moron to run something
> like that in zip-file.
These things are just the internet's way of natural population control. Those
people who execute things blindly of their own accord deserve whatever happens
to them.
While these things are a nuisance, they're hardly that big of a deal. These
kind of things have existed forever, and people have somehow managed to get
by.
If people are that concerned that they might possibly be exploited by it,
they have a number of solutions:
1) Get a real OS
2) Get a real Email client
3) Apply common sense where possible
These 3 easy steps are the quickest way to abolish these kind of things once
and for all.
Regards,
--
Paul Mundt <[email protected]>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 04:07:47AM -0700, Paul Mundt wrote:
> While these things are a nuisance, they're hardly that big of a deal. These
> kind of things have existed forever, and people have somehow managed to get
> by.
they ARE a big deal. someone, somewhere pays for the traffic. they
didn't CHOOSE to be flooded with virii/worms. but their upstream won't
be nice and say "aw you got hit by some email virus i wont bill you for
that traffic..."
your attitude seems similar to that of spammers. "just press del!"
j.
--
"Bobby, jiggle Grandpa's rat so it looks alive, please" -- gary larson
> they ARE a big deal. someone, somewhere pays for the traffic. they
> didn't CHOOSE to be flooded with virii/worms. but their upstream won't
> be nice and say "aw you got hit by some email virus i wont bill you for
> that traffic..."
Its more than that. Its the same smug arrogance that is going to get a lot
of people nasty shocks one day
ELM, Pine and Mutt have all at various times had holes that could have been
used to write an exact Unix equivalent of the windows virus.
<img src="file:/dev/mouse"> hangs some web browser email 4 years after the
bug was reported and so on...
Alan
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 12:46:18PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Its more than that. Its the same smug arrogance that is going to get a lot
> of people nasty shocks one day
>
> ELM, Pine and Mutt have all at various times had holes that could have been
> used to write an exact Unix equivalent of the windows virus.
> <img src="file:/dev/mouse"> hangs some web browser email 4 years after the
> bug was reported and so on...
>
This all goes back to opening things blindly, and also ties in the issue of
HTML aware email clients.
Mail clients should simply be dealing with plain text. As soon as things like
HTML support are introduced into the client, you have the same sort of
problems that you do with easily exploitable web browsers.
These things are only an issue when your mail client tries to do things for
you instead of allowing you to do them yourself. HTML emails can simply be
fed through something like a lynx -dump in order to capture their plaintext
output.
Keep HTML where it belongs, on webpages, not mail. If someone wants to send
you an image, they can do so through an attachment.
Regards,
--
Paul Mundt <[email protected]>
> > ELM, Pine and Mutt have all at various times had holes that could have been
> > used to write an exact Unix equivalent of the windows virus.
> > <img src="file:/dev/mouse"> hangs some web browser email 4 years after the
> > bug was reported and so on...
> >
> This all goes back to opening things blindly, and also ties in the issue of
> HTML aware email clients.
Most exploits are header parsing flaws, HTML email is irrelevant to this
discussion.
> Mail clients should simply be dealing with plain text. As soon as things like
> HTML support are introduced into the client, you have the same sort of
> problems that you do with easily exploitable web browsers.
No. Most of them are header parsing flaws, they worked with plain text
email just fine. In fact HTML parsing vulnerabilities (other than privacy
violations) are pretty rare.
Alan
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 01:15:21PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > ELM, Pine and Mutt have all at various times had holes that could have been
> > > used to write an exact Unix equivalent of the windows virus.
> > > <img src="file:/dev/mouse"> hangs some web browser email 4 years after the
> > > bug was reported and so on...
> > >
> > This all goes back to opening things blindly, and also ties in the issue of
> > HTML aware email clients.
>
> Most exploits are header parsing flaws, HTML email is irrelevant to this
> discussion.
>
Parsing an <img> tag certainly seems to make HTML email relevant...
> > Mail clients should simply be dealing with plain text. As soon as things like
> > HTML support are introduced into the client, you have the same sort of
> > problems that you do with easily exploitable web browsers.
>
> No. Most of them are header parsing flaws, they worked with plain text
> email just fine. In fact HTML parsing vulnerabilities (other than privacy
> violations) are pretty rare.
>
There are far fewer header parsing exploits floating around then there are
users executing things of an unknown origin and unknowingly sending copies of
said thing to everyone in their address book.
While header parsing exploits are indeed an issue, they hardly make up the
bulk of these sort of exploits.
Things like Elm, Pine, and Mutt can be as exploitable as anything else as far
as header parsing issues are concerned. They still account for far less
of the problems than things like Outlook do.
Regards,
--
Paul Mundt <[email protected]>
> Things like Elm, Pine, and Mutt can be as exploitable as anything else as far
> as header parsing issues are concerned. They still account for far less
> of the problems than things like Outlook do.
Only because the relative %age of the userbase is tiny.
There have actually been some very serious pine based attacks using header
parsing bugs to steal password files.
I opened it up just fine in my gzip app, saw that it was most likely another
one of those windows viruses, and tossed it out. Can't run it anyway -- I'm
a Mac / Linux shop. Sorry about what happened to all those lemmings,
though. Hehe.
> Incase someone was stupid enough to open the attachment, and run the exe,
> DON'T DO IT.
>
> <McAfee>
> /Music.exe
> Found the W32/Music@M trojan !!!
> </McAfee>
--
Sincerely,
Jim Potter
45th Parallel Processing
[email protected]
Would it not be simple and effective to filter out mail produced by
Outlook?
It sounds to me the equivalent of RBL & co.
RBL filter out mail from open relay used to spam us.
NoOutlook filter out mail from poor software/OS used to propagate viruses.
I guess that 100% of incomming viruses in lkml come from a Outlook mailer.
And for the last two ones I'm sure.
Christophe
Le lun, 30 jui 2001 09:28:53, Riley Williams a ?crit :
> Hi Rik.
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>
> >> At 23:20 29/07/2001, Mailing Server wrote:
>
> >>>Hi, just verifying email, enjoy the attached file.
>
> >> Would it be possible to have lkml setup to filter out this kind of
> >> crap?!?
>
> > IIRC lkml already has pretty strict filters.
> >
> > However, you cannot have your filters prepared for
> > any random thing. Eventually something will get
> > through.
> >
> > It seems that this month's something just got through.
>
> Surely it should be simple to check that each piece of mail has a from
> address in it, and either kill any that doesn't, or at least plug in
> the envelope from address in its place?
>
> Best wishes from Riley.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Christophe Barb?
Software Engineer - [email protected]
Lineo France - Lineo High Availability Group
42-46, rue M?d?ric - 92110 Clichy - France
phone (33).1.41.40.02.12 - fax (33).1.41.40.02.01
http://www.lineo.com
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, christophe barb? wrote:
> Would it not be simple and effective to filter out mail produced by
> Outlook?
> It sounds to me the equivalent of RBL & co.
> RBL filter out mail from open relay used to spam us.
> NoOutlook filter out mail from poor software/OS used to propagate viruses.
>
> I guess that 100% of incomming viruses in lkml come from a Outlook mailer.
> And for the last two ones I'm sure.
>
> Christophe
Um, that's just a little (LITTLE?!?) draconian/elitist. How about putting in a
handler that renames EXEs attachments and EXEs in compressed files to
something a little
less executable?
Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Outlook or OE, but you can't just step on
people who use them.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <[email protected]>
Ignacio Vazquez-Ab writes:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, christophe barb? wrote:
>> Would it not be simple and effective to filter out mail produced by
>> Outlook?
>> It sounds to me the equivalent of RBL & co.
>> RBL filter out mail from open relay used to spam us.
>> NoOutlook filter out mail from poor software/OS used to propagate viruses.
>>
>> I guess that 100% of incomming viruses in lkml come from a Outlook mailer.
>> And for the last two ones I'm sure.
>>
>> Christophe
>
> Um, that's just a little (LITTLE?!?) draconian/elitist. How about
> putting in a handler that renames EXEs attachments and EXEs in
> compressed files to something a little less executable?
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Outlook or OE, but you
> can't just step on people who use them.
This is a lot less draconian/elitist than banning ISPs. People
seldom have a choice between multiple ISPs that offer affordable
high-speed connections. Consider yourself lucky if both DSL and
cable modem service are available and affordable in your area.
Banning Outlook isn't so bad. Assuming you are stuck with Windows,
you still have many choices. Netscape/Mozilla and Eudora would be
the obvious choices. I think you can get pine. Emacs has been
ported to Windows, so you have the rmail/gnus stuff. Surely you
can tolerate at least one of these many choices.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 06:17:31PM +0200, christophe barb? wrote:
> Would it not be simple and effective to filter out mail produced by
> Outlook?
http://unthought.net/msworms.html
> It sounds to me the equivalent of RBL & co.
> RBL filter out mail from open relay used to spam us.
> NoOutlook filter out mail from poor software/OS used to propagate viruses.
Any agent could be vulnerable.
Discrimination is hardly a viable solution.
>
> I guess that 100% of incomming viruses in lkml come from a Outlook mailer.
> And for the last two ones I'm sure.
Life sucks get a helmet.
--
................................................................
: [email protected] : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob ?stergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Banning Outlook isn't so bad. Assuming you are stuck with Windows,
> you still have many choices. Netscape/Mozilla and Eudora would be
> the obvious choices. I think you can get pine. Emacs has been
> ported to Windows, so you have the rmail/gnus stuff. Surely you
> can tolerate at least one of these many choices.
The problem is that in plenty of large companies not only are you stuck with
Windows, but you're also stuck with either Outlook or Notes because of
corporate decisions (i.e., Exchange or Domino). Trust me; been there, done
that.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <[email protected]>
One problem with the idea of banning "MS virus express" is that most of the
lemmings stuck with MS's windows are also stuck with the MS's mail app. If they
had the wherewithall (personal, political, whatever) to switch to a different
mail app, they'de probably know how & be able to switch the whole thing to a
better environment.
> >> Would it not be simple and effective to filter out mail produced by
> >> Outlook?
> >> It sounds to me the equivalent of RBL & co.
> >> RBL filter out mail from open relay used to spam us.
> >> NoOutlook filter out mail from poor software/OS used to propagate viruses.
> >>
> >> I guess that 100% of incomming viruses in lkml come from a Outlook mailer.
> >> And for the last two ones I'm sure.
> >>
> >> Christophe
> >
> > Um, that's just a little (LITTLE?!?) draconian/elitist. How about
> > putting in a handler that renames EXEs attachments and EXEs in
> > compressed files to something a little less executable?
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Outlook or OE, but you
> > can't just step on people who use them.
>
> This is a lot less draconian/elitist than banning ISPs. People
> seldom have a choice between multiple ISPs that offer affordable
> high-speed connections. Consider yourself lucky if both DSL and
> cable modem service are available and affordable in your area.
>
> Banning Outlook isn't so bad. Assuming you are stuck with Windows,
> you still have many choices. Netscape/Mozilla and Eudora would be
> the obvious choices. I think you can get pine. Emacs has been
> ported to Windows, so you have the rmail/gnus stuff. Surely you
> can tolerate at least one of these many choices.
--
Sincerely,
Jim Potter
45th Parallel Processing
[email protected]
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Ignacio Vazquez-Ab writes:
> > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, christophe barb? wrote:
>
> >> Would it not be simple and effective to filter out mail produced by
> >> Outlook?
> >> It sounds to me the equivalent of RBL & co.
> >> RBL filter out mail from open relay used to spam us.
> >> NoOutlook filter out mail from poor software/OS used to propagate viruses.
> >>
> >> I guess that 100% of incomming viruses in lkml come from a Outlook mailer.
> >> And for the last two ones I'm sure.
> >>
> >> Christophe
> >
> > Um, that's just a little (LITTLE?!?) draconian/elitist. How about
> > putting in a handler that renames EXEs attachments and EXEs in
> > compressed files to something a little less executable?
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Outlook or OE, but you
> > can't just step on people who use them.
>
> This is a lot less draconian/elitist than banning ISPs. People
> seldom have a choice between multiple ISPs that offer affordable
> high-speed connections. Consider yourself lucky if both DSL and
> cable modem service are available and affordable in your area.
>
> Banning Outlook isn't so bad. Assuming you are stuck with Windows,
> you still have many choices. Netscape/Mozilla and Eudora would be
> the obvious choices. I think you can get pine. Emacs has been
> ported to Windows, so you have the rmail/gnus stuff. Surely you
> can tolerate at least one of these many choices.
Why bother? The _occasional_ spam slips through the filters. I don't
see any real difference if some weenie slips me a plain spam or a spam
with an impotent attachment I'm not going to look at anyway. It all
costs me the same.. one 'D'+download cost.
-Mike
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> The problem is that in plenty of large companies not only are you stuck with
> Windows, but you're also stuck with either Outlook or Notes because of
> corporate decisions (i.e., Exchange or Domino). Trust me; been there, done
> that.
Hmm... linux developers at large corporations are stuck with [only]
windows? How do they get anything done? Just because you're stuck with
outlook for scheduling or whatever doesn't mean you can't send to mailing
lists from another mailer, another OS, or another country.
justin
I hate to jump in and extend this mostly off-topic thread, but I would be
a little annoyed if Outlook was banned from LKML. I've got two machines
on my desk here at work - one is Win2K, and is used almost exclusively for
Outlook and Word. It's very difficult to give those up when the rest of
the company uses them extensively. The automatic meeting scheduling and
other MS Exchange features of Outlook are not available in other clients,
and why should I switch when Outlook works fine?
Of course the other computer runs Linux, and is where all my real work
gets done. It's convenient to have both environments.
Why not just filter all non-text attachments instead? Patches, log files,
output of lspci, and the like should all be inlined anyway. It's easy
to configure Outlook to send plain text emails, like this one - I've sent
kernel patches from Outlook before, and no one has complained.
Torrey
- - - - -
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Ignacio Vazquez-Ab writes:
> > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, christophe barb? wrote:
> >> Would it not be simple and effective to filter out mail produced by
> >> Outlook?
[...]
> > Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Outlook or OE, but you
> > can't just step on people who use them.
[...]
> Banning Outlook isn't so bad. Assuming you are stuck with Windows,
> you still have many choices. Netscape/Mozilla and Eudora would be
> the obvious choices.
[...]
Torrey Hoffman writes:
> I hate to jump in and extend this mostly off-topic thread, but I would be
> a little annoyed if Outlook was banned from LKML. I've got two machines
> on my desk here at work - one is Win2K, and is used almost exclusively for
> Outlook and Word. It's very difficult to give those up when the rest of
> the company uses them extensively. The automatic meeting scheduling and
> other MS Exchange features of Outlook are not available in other clients,
> and why should I switch when Outlook works fine?
>
> Of course the other computer runs Linux, and is where all my real work
> gets done. It's convenient to have both environments.
This does not mean you have to use Outlook to _send_ mail to
the linux-kernel mailing list. Do this:
1. log into the Linux box you have
2. run emacs
3. Control-x m
4. fill in the header fields and write your message
5. Control-c Control-c
If you really must send mail directly from the Windows box,
get emacs for Windows and skip step 1 above.
BTW, if you can't log into anything that can open an SMTP connection
to the outside world and don't have a relay, then most likely your
employer doesn't want you sending stuff to linux-kernel anyway.
In clouddancer.list.kernel, you wrote:
>
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
>
>> The problem is that in plenty of large companies not only are you stuck with
>> Windows, but you're also stuck with either Outlook or Notes because of
>> corporate decisions (i.e., Exchange or Domino). Trust me; been there, done
>> that.
>
>Hmm... linux developers at large corporations are stuck with [only]
>windows? How do they get anything done? Just because you're stuck with
>outlook for scheduling or whatever doesn't mean you can't send to mailing
>lists from another mailer, another OS, or another country.
I've dealt with "you've gotta run" before. I had the required
hardware & software running over in the corner, with shared disk space
or remote access from the linux box on the desktop. It wasn't easy,
but I simply stuck to my insistance that I _needed_ this (only one
example required) and that I was meeting the company's requirements.
Nowdays, that situation is on my checklist to determine if I want to
work there.
The really funny thing about the initial email is the amount of
interest in the followups and their meanderings.
--
Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> This does not mean you have to use Outlook to _send_ mail to
> the linux-kernel mailing list. Do this:
[...]
(sigh.) So you want me to change the way I (and other people) work
so.... Why was it again? So we can block the one message in 1000
that contains a Windows virus and was sent from Outlook?
and, incidentally, block bug reports and other potentially useful
mail and valid help requests from people who may not be subscribed,
may be having difficulty installing Linux...
And you think that's better than just blocking the viruses, or
binary attachments in general, or something else more rational?
Please.
Torrey
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:19:17PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Torrey Hoffman writes:
> > I hate to jump in and extend this mostly off-topic thread, but I would be
> > a little annoyed if Outlook was banned from LKML. I've got two machines
> > on my desk here at work - one is Win2K, and is used almost exclusively for
[snip]
> This does not mean you have to use Outlook to _send_ mail to
> the linux-kernel mailing list. Do this:
There already are readers of LKML who filter listmail from Outlook/'Internet
mail server' into /dev/null.
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:19:17 -0400 (EDT), Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
>Torrey Hoffman writes:
>
>> I hate to jump in and extend this mostly off-topic thread, but I would be
>> a little annoyed if Outlook was banned from LKML. I've got two machines
>> on my desk here at work - one is Win2K, and is used almost exclusively for
>> Outlook and Word. It's very difficult to give those up when the rest of
>> the company uses them extensively. The automatic meeting scheduling and
>> other MS Exchange features of Outlook are not available in other clients,
>> and why should I switch when Outlook works fine?
Completely agree. I am in the exact same situation. I need/want to follow
Linux development, but my corporate desktop is MS, Outlook etc.
What's wrong with that ? (my development systems are not connected to
anything else but our internal network.)
>> Of course the other computer runs Linux, and is where all my real work
>> gets done. It's convenient to have both environments.
>
>This does not mean you have to use Outlook to _send_ mail to
>the linux-kernel mailing list. Do this:
>
>1. log into the Linux box you have
>2. run emacs
>3. Control-x m
>4. fill in the header fields and write your message
>5. Control-c Control-c
Bollocks. Look, the main target here is practicality, and what
you just demonstrated was plainly impractical.
>If you really must send mail directly from the Windows box,
>get emacs for Windows and skip step 1 above.
This is an awful lot of effort just to overcome some peoples
failure to avoid double-clicking on attachments in Outlook.
>
>BTW, if you can't log into anything that can open an SMTP connection
>to the outside world and don't have a relay, then most likely your
>employer doesn't want you sending stuff to linux-kernel anyway.
Disagree. See above and join life in the real world.
regards,
Per Jessen, Zurich.
regards,
Per Jessen
Basically, I use a hotmail and Outlook Express to help me SORT messages
on LKML. It makes it MUCH easier for me to find the messages I want to
read vs the rest of the noise that I don't understand yet.
One thing is certain: It is impossible to have a collection of geeks
this large, and not have some of them display the sort of egotistical
attitude that makes them go "Oh, he's using OE? Well, I shall thumb my
nose in his general direction! We should only allow
<Pine|Mutt|Emacs|Other> on this list. Sniff. Sniff.".
Just ignore it. I do. I learn more and more from this list everyday,
and if someone doesn't want to read what I have to say because of the
software I use to read the list, then I guess I'm not all that
interested in them reading it anyway. :-)
Regards,
Scott
webmaster, http://www.geekizoid.com/ <-- Running Linux...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Per Jessen" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Test mail
| >On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:19:17 -0400 (EDT), Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
| >
| >Torrey Hoffman writes:
| >
| >> I hate to jump in and extend this mostly off-topic thread, but I
would be
| >> a little annoyed if Outlook was banned from LKML. I've got two
machines
| >> on my desk here at work - one is Win2K, and is used almost
exclusively for
| >> Outlook and Word. It's very difficult to give those up when the
rest of
| >> the company uses them extensively. The automatic meeting
scheduling and
| >> other MS Exchange features of Outlook are not available in other
clients,
| >> and why should I switch when Outlook works fine?
|
| Completely agree. I am in the exact same situation. I need/want to
follow
| Linux development, but my corporate desktop is MS, Outlook etc.
| What's wrong with that ? (my development systems are not connected to
| anything else but our internal network.)
|
| >> Of course the other computer runs Linux, and is where all my real
work
| >> gets done. It's convenient to have both environments.
| >
| >This does not mean you have to use Outlook to _send_ mail to
| >the linux-kernel mailing list. Do this:
| >
| >1. log into the Linux box you have
| >2. run emacs
| >3. Control-x m
| >4. fill in the header fields and write your message
| >5. Control-c Control-c
|
| Bollocks. Look, the main target here is practicality, and what
| you just demonstrated was plainly impractical.
|
| >If you really must send mail directly from the Windows box,
| >get emacs for Windows and skip step 1 above.
|
| This is an awful lot of effort just to overcome some peoples
| failure to avoid double-clicking on attachments in Outlook.
|
| >
| >BTW, if you can't log into anything that can open an SMTP connection
| >to the outside world and don't have a relay, then most likely your
| >employer doesn't want you sending stuff to linux-kernel anyway.
|
| Disagree. See above and join life in the real world.
|
|
| regards,
| Per Jessen, Zurich.
|
| regards,
| Per Jessen
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:38:02 -0400 (EDT), Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
>
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
>> Banning Outlook isn't so bad. Assuming you are stuck with Windows,
>> you still have many choices. Netscape/Mozilla and Eudora would be
>> the obvious choices. I think you can get pine. Emacs has been
>> ported to Windows, so you have the rmail/gnus stuff. Surely you
>> can tolerate at least one of these many choices.
>
>The problem is that in plenty of large companies not only are you stuck with
>Windows, but you're also stuck with either Outlook or Notes because of
>corporate decisions (i.e., Exchange or Domino). Trust me; been there, done
>that.
And me. And in reality there is nothing really wrong with that. The world
isn't black and white - it's not Windows or Linux either. For a corporation
of eg. 20.000 Windows desktops, you need a lot of convincing to switch the desktop
to Linux. Even if one of your core products is Linux based.
The fact is that your corporate desktop has little or nothing to do with your
products. Get it ? If that WERE the case, a lot of the corporations still
writing and shipping OS/390 software would have a serious problem.
(been there and done that too)
So, please, don't blame Outlook in this context - it IS a user problem - Outlook
is just a *relatively* innocent mail-client.
regards,
Per Jessen, Zurich
Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."
(borrowed from [email protected])
Justin Guyett <[email protected]> said:
[...]
> Hmm... linux developers at large corporations are stuck with [only]
> windows?
What about would-be Linux hackers, or people running Linux (il)legally on
some machines inside a WinXX shop? Want to leave them out for good? Not
everybody on lkml is a hard-core kernel hacker...
Now, banning some attachment types I could understand...
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand Usuario #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
4 words.. mail server virus scanner.
btw, does anyone know of (and please reply off-list as this is way OT)
any virus scanners for unix-type MTAs that keep an updated virii db
on-server via automatic remote updates from virus centers like symantec
(or anywhere else that would have an updated list of virii to plug into
the local db)?
-Tony
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
Anthony J. Biacco Network Administrator/Engineer
[email protected] Intergrafix Internet Services
"Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today"
http://www.asteroid-b612.org http://www.intergrafix.net
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Per Jessen wrote:
> >On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:38:02 -0400 (EDT), Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> >
> >On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> >
> >> Banning Outlook isn't so bad. Assuming you are stuck with Windows,
> >> you still have many choices. Netscape/Mozilla and Eudora would be
> >> the obvious choices. I think you can get pine. Emacs has been
> >> ported to Windows, so you have the rmail/gnus stuff. Surely you
> >> can tolerate at least one of these many choices.
> >
> >The problem is that in plenty of large companies not only are you stuck with
> >Windows, but you're also stuck with either Outlook or Notes because of
> >corporate decisions (i.e., Exchange or Domino). Trust me; been there, done
> >that.
>
> And me. And in reality there is nothing really wrong with that. The world
> isn't black and white - it's not Windows or Linux either. For a corporation
> of eg. 20.000 Windows desktops, you need a lot of convincing to switch the desktop
> to Linux. Even if one of your core products is Linux based.
> The fact is that your corporate desktop has little or nothing to do with your
> products. Get it ? If that WERE the case, a lot of the corporations still
> writing and shipping OS/390 software would have a serious problem.
> (been there and done that too)
>
> So, please, don't blame Outlook in this context - it IS a user problem - Outlook
> is just a *relatively* innocent mail-client.
>
>
>
> regards,
> Per Jessen, Zurich
>
> Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."
> (borrowed from [email protected])
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Gregory Maxwell <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:19:17PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> There already are readers of LKML who filter listmail from
> Outlook/'Internet
/hotmail.com
> mail server' into /dev/null.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[email protected]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 05:14:30PM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Justin Guyett <[email protected]> said:
How was it.. Be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you
accept?
It took Rik (IIRC) to say he was leaving l-k to get rid of that stupid DUL
abusing thing that didn't allow him (and others, including me!) to post..
please lets not get there again.
As Horst says, not everyone is a hard-core hacker.. now imagine one or two
of them actually had to post with, say outlook. Would you still want to
filter it? I'm sure not.
--
____/| Ragnar H?jland Freedom - Linux - OpenGL | Brainbench MVP
\ o.O| PGP94C4B2F0D27DE025BE2302C104B78C56 B72F0822 | for Unix Programming
=(_)= "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for | (http://www.brainbench.com)
U chaos and madness await thee at its end."
My proposal to block mail composed with Outlook was half serious but I
believe that the reason behind this half serious side is that it educates
users.
I don't care when I receive a virus. But It means that somebody lurking
lkml has most likely launch an unknown attachment.
And this is the main way viruses are propagated. Only a small number of
viruses use Outlook giant security hole that allows to execute an
attachment without user action (other that viewing the mail). Sircam like
ILoveYou&co need help from stupid (uneducated) user.
So if you forbid Outlook and explain why, people becomes more aware of this
problem.
And this is important, specially important on this RED CODE day where even
Microsoft advices its NT users to shutdown their machine. I would not be
astonished to have Internet problem today due to the wasted bandwidth.
Christophe
Le lun, 30 jui 2001 20:33:55, Gregory Maxwell a ?crit :
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:19:17PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > Torrey Hoffman writes:
> > > I hate to jump in and extend this mostly off-topic thread, but I
> would be
> > > a little annoyed if Outlook was banned from LKML. I've got two
> machines
> > > on my desk here at work - one is Win2K, and is used almost
> exclusively for
> [snip]
> > This does not mean you have to use Outlook to _send_ mail to
> > the linux-kernel mailing list. Do this:
>
> There already are readers of LKML who filter listmail from
> Outlook/'Internet
> mail server' into /dev/null.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Christophe Barb?
Software Engineer - [email protected]
Lineo France - Lineo High Availability Group
42-46, rue M?d?ric - 92110 Clichy - France
phone (33).1.41.40.02.12 - fax (33).1.41.40.02.01
http://www.lineo.com
Le lun, 30 jui 2001 22:23:03, William Scott Lockwood III a ?crit :
> Basically, I use a hotmail and Outlook Express to help me SORT messages
> on LKML. It makes it MUCH easier for me to find the messages I want to
> read vs the rest of the noise that I don't understand yet.
Sick ...
And btw you should read the various HotMail agreements you have signed.
Sick? No.
As much as we dislike M$'s marketing practices, one has to admit that
they DO come up with some GOOD solutions to problems, they just bundle
them into BAD implementations that are non-free.
As I said earlier, the problem isn't hotmail - the problem is attitudes
like yours.
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "christophe barb?" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: Test mail
Le lun, 30 jui 2001 22:23:03, William Scott Lockwood III a ?crit :
> Basically, I use a hotmail and Outlook Express to help me SORT
messages
> on LKML. It makes it MUCH easier for me to find the messages I want
to
> read vs the rest of the noise that I don't understand yet.
Sick ...
And btw you should read the various HotMail agreements you have signed.
Here you have hit on the real problem.
I got hit with a virus this way once long ago - I did something about
it. No more problems. IN fact, anyone who's using McAfee to scan their
mail under 9x/NT is fine. Even if they try to open the attachment.
So banning Outlook/Hotmail is not the answer. Education is.
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "christophe barb?" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: Test mail
My proposal to block mail composed with Outlook was half serious but I
believe that the reason behind this half serious side is that it
educates
users.
Hi William Scott Lockwood III,
In your mails, you use outlook and hotmail together.
This is a mistake.
Outlook is a "not so bad idea" but which comes with a collection of
security holes. Eudora is definetly a better choice.
Hotmail is a http-based mail owned by microsoft. And all contents which go
in it become potential Microsoft content (there's a kind of implicit
copyright transfert between you end Microsoft).
You should read carrefully what you have (implicitly perhaps) signed.
You should avoid Hotmail. This is not related to M$ against Linux but to
your rights (to access and only you to your data) against M$ profits. From
the Microsoft point of view, Hotmail License is an improvment over the way
they lock their clients by using proprietary (embraced-and-extanded)
protocols and standarts.
Hotmail was the first site to use Microsoft Passport, which is the a draft
of .Net. If you accept Hotmail today you will accept the worst of .Net
tomorrow.
btw You said that Microsoft comes with good solutions.
This view (linux is not user friendly) is partly wrong because what is said
to be not user friendly is caused by people not accepting differences.
M$ users are scared by what we call the unix-way.
To conclude and I will stop following this thread, I'm against adding IQ
test in the lkml subscribe process.
Christophe
PS: I don't remember the name but there is a unix tool that provide
everything for MsExchange sharing facilities.
Le mar, 31 jui 2001 13:42:20, William Scott Lockwood III a ?crit :
> Sick? No.
>
> As much as we dislike M$'s marketing practices, one has to admit that
> they DO come up with some GOOD solutions to problems, they just bundle
> them into BAD implementations that are non-free.
>
> As I said earlier, the problem isn't hotmail - the problem is attitudes
> like yours.
>
> Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "christophe barb?" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Test mail
>
>
>
> Le lun, 30 jui 2001 22:23:03, William Scott Lockwood III a ?crit :
> > Basically, I use a hotmail and Outlook Express to help me SORT
> messages
> > on LKML. It makes it MUCH easier for me to find the messages I want
> to
> > read vs the rest of the noise that I don't understand yet.
>
> Sick ...
>
> And btw you should read the various HotMail agreements you have signed.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
--
Christophe Barb?
Software Engineer - [email protected]
Lineo France - Lineo High Availability Group
42-46, rue M?d?ric - 92110 Clichy - France
phone (33).1.41.40.02.12 - fax (33).1.41.40.02.01
http://www.lineo.com
Think what you like.
No matter what a shrink wrap (or Click-Wrap) agreement states, license
agreements can not, and do not invalidate my rights (and my copyright)
to what I write myself. Not in the country anyway.
The problem is a combination of over zealousness and bigotry. Period.
Use what you like, please allow me to do the same.
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "christophe barb?" <[email protected]>
To: "William Scott Lockwood III" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: Test mail
Hi William Scott Lockwood III,
In your mails, you use outlook and hotmail together.
This is a mistake.
Outlook is a "not so bad idea" but which comes with a collection of
security holes. Eudora is definetly a better choice.
Hotmail is a http-based mail owned by microsoft. And all contents which
go
in it become potential Microsoft content (there's a kind of implicit
copyright transfert between you end Microsoft).
You should read carrefully what you have (implicitly perhaps) signed.
You should avoid Hotmail. This is not related to M$ against Linux but to
your rights (to access and only you to your data) against M$ profits.
From
the Microsoft point of view, Hotmail License is an improvment over the
way
they lock their clients by using proprietary (embraced-and-extanded)
protocols and standarts.
Hotmail was the first site to use Microsoft Passport, which is the a
draft
of .Net. If you accept Hotmail today you will accept the worst of .Net
tomorrow.
btw You said that Microsoft comes with good solutions.
This view (linux is not user friendly) is partly wrong because what is
said
to be not user friendly is caused by people not accepting differences.
M$ users are scared by what we call the unix-way.
To conclude and I will stop following this thread, I'm against adding IQ
test in the lkml subscribe process.
Christophe
PS: I don't remember the name but there is a unix tool that provide
everything for MsExchange sharing facilities.
Le mar, 31 jui 2001 13:42:20, William Scott Lockwood III a ?crit :
> Sick? No.
>
> As much as we dislike M$'s marketing practices, one has to admit that
> they DO come up with some GOOD solutions to problems, they just bundle
> them into BAD implementations that are non-free.
>
> As I said earlier, the problem isn't hotmail - the problem is
attitudes
> like yours.
>
> Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "christophe barb?" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Test mail
>
>
>
> Le lun, 30 jui 2001 22:23:03, William Scott Lockwood III a ?crit :
> > Basically, I use a hotmail and Outlook Express to help me SORT
> messages
> > on LKML. It makes it MUCH easier for me to find the messages I want
> to
> > read vs the rest of the noise that I don't understand yet.
>
> Sick ...
>
> And btw you should read the various HotMail agreements you have
signed.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-kernel"
> in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
--
Christophe Barb?
Software Engineer - [email protected]
Lineo France - Lineo High Availability Group
42-46, rue M?d?ric - 92110 Clichy - France
phone (33).1.41.40.02.12 - fax (33).1.41.40.02.01
http://www.lineo.com
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 06:17:31PM +0200, christophe barb? wrote:
> Would it not be simple and effective to filter out mail produced by Outlook?
No. If you look carefully, you would be surprised at how many are
using OutlookSExpress to handle their email.
Of course in case of Viruses using OE security bugs, we all are seeing
the distilled evil.
It is analogous on how I am seeing the UNRELIABILITY of people's email
systems. I see only failure cases, never succesfull deliveries!
If you want to discuss on how to put stricter filters of things
into VGER's Majordomo, you can do that with <[email protected]>
Doing it at lists is waste of time, and misses *MY* attention!
/Matti Aarnio <[email protected]>
Co-postmaster of vger.kernel.org
Is too silly to speak about what you most likely did not see at all. All
security BUGS can be fixed checking "more restricted". If it configured
correctly all should be ok.
I use Outlook and I have never been infected with any email virus because of
it.
Best regards,
Alexander mailto:[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets start the war, said Meggy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "christophe barb?" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Test mail
>
> Le lun, 30 jui 2001 22:23:03, William Scott Lockwood III a ?crit :
> > Basically, I use a hotmail and Outlook Express to help me SORT messages
> > on LKML. It makes it MUCH easier for me to find the messages I want to
> > read vs the rest of the noise that I don't understand yet.
>
> Sick ...
>
> And btw you should read the various HotMail agreements you have signed.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Hi Matti.
First, let's have a subject that reflects the content...
>> Would it not be simple and effective to filter out mail
>> produced by Outlook?
> No. If you look carefully, you would be surprised at how many
> are using OutlookSExpress to handle their email.
> Of course in case of Viruses using OE security bugs, we all are
> seeing the distilled evil.
Is there any way we can set up an automatic virus scan of all
attachments at vger, and have it deal with any virii at source?
Come to that, is there a decent Linux-based virus scanner around?
> It is analogous on how I am seeing the UNRELIABILITY of people's
> email systems. I see only failure cases, never succesfull
> deliveries!
Same here...
> If you want to discuss on how to put stricter filters of things
> into VGER's Majordomo, you can do that with
> <[email protected]>
> Doing it at lists is waste of time, and misses *MY* attention!
Hopefully, this caught your attention...
Best wishes from Riley.
>Is there any way we can set up an automatic virus scan of all
>attachments at vger, and have it deal with any virii at source?
Better than that, simply strip all non-text MIME attachments,
or bounce the messages containing them. End of story.
Craig Milo Rogers
I always thought it was bad form to send any sort of
enclosure/attachment to a mailing list.
I guess in this MIME-era too many mail clients too easily send the
message itself as an attachment.
How much does this list need real attachments? Might the list server
strip out all attachments?--and if a message has only attachments,
maybe try to find the one that is the body, break out it, and re-send
it as a boring 822 body with none of the doo-dads likely to catch the
attention of Outlook and other clever mail clients.
If Outlook is too clever by half, sending only non-clever ASCII
content is tempting.
-kb, the Kent who has been lurking with mutt.
Strip rather than bounce. Some of us know how to configure our mail
clients to send messages in plain text...
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Milo Rogers" <[email protected]>
To: "Riley Williams" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Matti Aarnio" <[email protected]>; "christophe barb?"
<[email protected]>; "Linux Kernel"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 1:12 PM
Subject: OT: Virii on vger.kernel.org lists
| >Is there any way we can set up an automatic virus scan of all
| >attachments at vger, and have it deal with any virii at source?
|
| Better than that, simply strip all non-text MIME attachments,
| or bounce the messages containing them. End of story.
|
| Craig Milo Rogers
| -
| To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-kernel" in
| the body of a message to [email protected]
| More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|
| > No. If you look carefully, you would be surprised at how many
| > are using OutlookSExpress to handle their email.
| > Of course in case of Viruses using OE security bugs, we all are
| > seeing the distilled evil.
Of course, non of the common "holes" in OE are left unfixed. People
should be responsible to update their mail clients. People using
Windows (like me) should also be responsible to maintain current virus
software themselves, rather than leaving that job to the mail server,
which seems like an unfair burden on the mail server to me. I
personally use McAfee, as it will auto update itself periodically if you
tell it to. Using OE as patched, and McAfee, Virii like the one that
just hit are not a problem - they are caught and killed before they can
execute... I got hit once (and if you search through the archives,
you'll find a message from me about it - one that I caught holy hell
from many of you for, but anyway) and learned from that incident to
secure my system. It has not happened since, and won't if I am careful.
The user has the responsibility to be careful, I think. Not the list
server.
| Is there any way we can set up an automatic virus scan of all
| attachments at vger, and have it deal with any virii at source?
Yes.
| Come to that, is there a decent Linux-based virus scanner around?
Yes.
| > It is analogous on how I am seeing the UNRELIABILITY of people's
| > email systems. I see only failure cases, never succesfull
| > deliveries!
| Same here...
No, you both miss the point. Some PEOPLE are ignorant or unreliable,
the email system performs exactly as instructed... No matter if it runs
on Linux, or *BSD, or Mickey$oft.
Regards,
Scott
Sorry for the OT post folks, but...
christophe barb? wrote:
>
> Christophe
>
> PS: I don't remember the name but there is a unix tool that provide
> everything for MsExchange sharing facilities.
>
You struck a chord here. I am forced to use Exchange here at work for my company e-mail (which would be [email protected]). I much prefer to use any Linux/UNIX
(I have a solaris box here as well) mail client and say off of Outhouse/Windows.
>From what you say above, and maybe I'm misreading it, there are applications out there that will allow me to do Exchange stuff on Linux? Someone please tell me
more.
Thanks,
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
UNIX Admin II/Programmer
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
http://www.akamai.com
Work: (858)909-3630
Cell: (858)395-5043
"Paul G. Allen" wrote:
> Sorry for the OT post folks, but...
> From what you say above, and maybe I'm misreading it, there are applications out there that will allow me to do Exchange stuff on Linux? Someone please tell me
> more.
HP Openmail was essentially a drop-in replacement
for MS exchange, but ran on Unix, including Linux.
Incredibly, as the HP engineers I know have related,
HP accepted a deal from microsoft that required them
to dump Openmail and go to ms exchange, so the HP
management "knifed the baby" and killed off a really
nice product.
Last I heard, Openmail is still available, but deprecated.
There was talk that microsoft would kill any attempt to sell
Openmail to a 3rd party, since the idea is to eliminate
alternatives to exchange.
Sadly,
jjs
On 31 Jul 2001 14:02:05 -0700, Paul G. Allen wrote:
> From what you say above, and maybe I'm misreading it, there are applications out there that will allow me to do Exchange stuff on Linux? Someone please tell me
> more.
well, evolution 11.99 will "theoretically" import exchange calendar
appointments
and stick them into your calendar. this works almost every other time
:)
and I use a perl based script that queries the global address book
called pabber.
I have not found something that will interact smoothly with the server
based
personal address book or calendar. so, if anyone knows of such a
program, please, please,
please let the world know (or at least me :)
-tduffy
Craig Milo Rogers wrote:
>
> >Is there any way we can set up an automatic virus scan of all
> >attachments at vger, and have it deal with any virii at source?
>
> Better than that, simply strip all non-text MIME attachments,
> or bounce the messages containing them. End of story.
>
This is exactly what is done with the KPLUG mailing lists (Kernel-Panic Linux User Group - http://www.kernel-panic.org). Attachments are not allowed by the mail server
and anyone sending HTML/RTF format mail gets an earful (eyeful?) from other list members.
Of course this would not stop Subseven propagation (generally, Subseven is attached to a web site and an e-mail is sent to you with a link to that site.
Clicking on the link, loading the site, infects your Windows box), but then this is a case where simple education is the way to stop propagation.
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen
UNIX Admin II/Programmer
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
http://www.akamai.com
Work: (858)909-3630
Cell: (858)395-5043
>
> | > No. If you look carefully, you would be surprised at how many
> | > are using OutlookSExpress to handle their email.
> | > Of course in case of Viruses using OE security bugs, we all are
> | > seeing the distilled evil.
> Of course, non of the common "holes" in OE are left unfixed. People
> should be responsible to update their mail clients. People using
> Windows (like me) should also be responsible to maintain current virus
> software themselves, rather than leaving that job to the mail server,
> which seems like an unfair burden on the mail server to me.
Not everyone has control of the system they can post from.
Some IS departments are poor at keeping systems secure, but still
won't let users touch them.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Ian Stirling wrote:
> Not everyone has control of the system they can post from.
> Some IS departments are poor at keeping systems secure, but still
> won't let users touch them.
Or have been told by management that they are required to use buggy e-mail
clients because "it is company policy".
They tried to get me to use Exchange at the last company I worked for. I
laughed and then moved all my mail to the Linux box under my desk. I was
one of the few people in the company that had a stable mail account.
[email protected] | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
"All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman
Totally irrelevant. As long as the other people those messages get sent
to have their act together, the problem dies there. If not, then the
morons responsible for maintaining the clients and mailservers that will
still allow this to happen get taught a lesson, don't they?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Stirling" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Virii on vger.kernel.org lists
| >
| > | > No. If you look carefully, you would be surprised at how many
| > | > are using OutlookSExpress to handle their email.
| > | > Of course in case of Viruses using OE security bugs, we all are
| > | > seeing the distilled evil.
|
| > Of course, non of the common "holes" in OE are left unfixed. People
| > should be responsible to update their mail clients. People using
| > Windows (like me) should also be responsible to maintain current
virus
| > software themselves, rather than leaving that job to the mail
server,
| > which seems like an unfair burden on the mail server to me.
|
| Not everyone has control of the system they can post from.
| Some IS departments are poor at keeping systems secure, but still
| won't let users touch them.
|
| -
| To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-kernel" in
| the body of a message to [email protected]
| More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|
> I have not found something that will interact smoothly with the server
> based
> personal address book or calendar. so, if anyone knows of such a
> program, please, please,
> please let the world know (or at least me :)
The best thing I can recommend is syncml (http://www.syncml.org). I heard
their are syncml plugins avaliable since people want to have all their
exchange functionality on their cell phones.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 07:02:18PM +0100, Riley Williams wrote:
> Hi Matti.
>
> First, let's have a subject that reflects the content...
Ack, should have done that long ago...
....
> > Of course in case of Viruses using OE security bugs, we all are
> > seeing the distilled evil.
>
> Is there any way we can set up an automatic virus scan of all
> attachments at vger, and have it deal with any virii at source?
>
> Come to that, is there a decent Linux-based virus scanner around?
I have been asked, several times, if I could integrate some
virus scanner wrapper, like Amavis, into ZMailer. The more I think
of that, the more it appears to be stuff for 3.x series of ZMailer;
not for current 2.x ... but the technology slated for 3.x implements
something like 2/3 of Amavis for other internal system purposes ...
Nevertheless, that is just the interface from email system to separate
file scanner. Those scanners are available in abundance for winblows,
but are very rare for anything else. Amavis pages seem to point to
a bunch of products with Linux support, so perhaps there are something
usefull to be plugged in ?
> > Doing it at lists is waste of time, and misses *MY* attention!
> Hopefully, this caught your attention...
>
> Best wishes from Riley.
/Matti Aarnio
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matti Aarnio" <[email protected]>
To: "Riley Williams" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Linux Kernel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Virii on vger.kernel.org lists
| Nevertheless, that is just the interface from email system to separate
| file scanner. Those scanners are available in abundance for winblows,
| but are very rare for anything else. Amavis pages seem to point to
| a bunch of products with Linux support, so perhaps there are something
| usefull to be plugged in ?
http://www.mcafeeb2b.com/naicommon/buy-try/try/products-evals.asp
Go there, select your language and LINUX, and you will get a survey to
fill out that then lets you test drive their stuff for linux.
Hi Craig.
>> Is there any way we can set up an automatic virus scan of all
>> attachments at vger, and have it deal with any virii at source?
> Better than that, simply strip all non-text MIME attachments, or
> bounce the messages containing them. End of story.
Two problems with that:
1. Some virii are text attachments. Your fix doesn't deal wioth them.
2. The maintainer of the XXX driver just uploaded a large patch that
fixes a major bug in their driver to the mailing list, and zip'd
it up to reduce its size. You just bounced it...
Basically, that particular fix causes pain and gives no gain, so as
far as I'm concerned, it's a non-starter...
Best wishes from Riley.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, J Sloan wrote:
> There was talk that microsoft would kill any attempt to sell Openmail
> to a 3rd party, since the idea is to eliminate alternatives to
> exchange.
HP will continue to support OpemMail for at least five more years. Please,
recommend it to your employers. If they get a significant income from
people who take up OpenMail, it will wake up people at HP.
It would be nice if HP stuck it to M$ up the arse by releasing it as open
source when the five years' are up.
--
Hey, they *are* out to get you, but it's nothing personal.
http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk
On 31 Jul 2001 23:17:13 +0100, Riley Williams wrote:
> 1. Some virii are text attachments. Your fix doesn't deal wioth them.
huh? how do you write an ASCII text virus. if you can do that, I will
give you a cookie.
example, maybe:
email receiver, please forward this message to everyone you know and
then execute as root "rm -rf /"
(if you refer to vbs text attachments, then that is a different story)
> 2. The maintainer of the XXX driver just uploaded a large patch that
> fixes a major bug in their driver to the mailing list, and zip'd
> it up to reduce its size. You just bounced it...
said driver writer should not be uploading huge patches to the mailing
list anyways and instead should have a URL that points to the website or
ftp site with the patch on it. if it is zipped already, then sending in
email defeats the purpose since I cannot view it in my email reader to
see if it makes sense. I have to be proactive about viewing it, so it
might as well be on a website or ftp site.
-tduffy
> > Better than that, simply strip all non-text MIME attachments, or
> > bounce the messages containing them. End of story.
>
>Two problems with that:
>
> 1. Some virii are text attachments. Your fix doesn't deal wioth them.
I'm not aware of the TEXT/PLAIN viruses (ignoring jokes, er,
social comments, about the GPL). Could you point me to a sample?
> 2. The maintainer of the XXX driver just uploaded a large patch that
> fixes a major bug in their driver to the mailing list, and zip'd
> it up to reduce its size. You just bounced it...
I recall from past discussions that there's considerable
sentiment on l-k that zip'd patches are undesirable. If the patch is
inconveniently large, it can be split into several messages, or placed
on an FTP server. Inconvenient for the developer, maybe, but better
for the list as a whole.
Separately, I think we've spent enough time with the off-topic
topic. Perhaps we can move the discussion offline?
Craig Milo Rogers
Hi William.
> Of course, non of the common "holes" in OE are left unfixed.
> People should be responsible to update their mail clients.
> People using Windows (like me) should also be responsible to
> maintain current virus software themselves, rather than leaving
> that job to the mail server, which seems like an unfair burden
> on the mail server to me.
Depends how you view it - I'd much rather host my mailing lists on a
server that I knew scans for virii and deals with any it finds than
one that doesn't.
> I personally use McAfee, as it will auto update itself
> periodically if you tell it to. Using OE as patched, and McAfee,
> Virii like the one that just hit are not a problem - they are
> caught and killed before they can execute...
McAfee isn't a guarantee, no more than any other virii scanner is. I
used to use McAfee, and had it in auto-update mode. I still got hit by
FOURTEEN virii within half an hour of it updating itself!
> I got hit once (and if you search through the archives, you'll
> find a message from me about it - one that I caught holy hell
> from many of you for, but anyway) and learned from that incident
> to secure my system. It has not happened since, and won't if I
> am careful.
Even if you're careful, you can still get hit, so don't rest on your
laurels...
> The user has the responsibility to be careful, I think. Not the
> list server.
My own viewpoint is somewhat less blase than yours - the more virii
scanners between the originator and me, the lower the likelihood of my
systems getting a virii.
>> Is there any way we can set up an automatic virus scan of all
>> attachments at vger, and have it deal with any virii at source?
> Yes.
>> Come to that, is there a decent Linux-based virus scanner around?
> Yes.
Perhaps you'd care to give details, since you're so blase about it...
>>> It is analogous on how I am seeing the UNRELIABILITY of people's
>>> email systems. I see only failure cases, never succesfull
>>> deliveries!
>> Same here...
> No, you both miss the point.
Oh?
> Some PEOPLE are ignorant or unreliable...
Whether people are ignorant or unreliable has about as much to do with
whether their computers can catch virii as with whether they can. The
only people likely to claim otherwise are virii writers, IMHO.
> The email system performs exactly as instructed, no matter if it
> runs on Linux, or *BSD, or Mickey$oft.
The basic point of this duscussion is that the email system's
instructions are flawed and need changing.
Best wishes from Riley.
Hello Riley!
As I said in another post on the list,
"http://www.mcafeeb2b.com/naicommon/buy-try/try/products-evals.asp
Go there, select your language and LINUX, and you will get a survey to
fill out that then lets you test drive their stuff for linux."
I don't feel that I am particularly blas?, but I will concede that you
have several good points. My main point was that people seem to be more
interested in the server doing the scanning for them rather than taking
responsibility for their own (lack of) security. Your view point is
just as valid.
And I don't think your experience with McAfee as reported is typical at
all. If it was, I'd still be having problems, and NAI would be out of
business. How long ago was this? What version of the product? What
OS? How did you update? What 14 Virii were you hit with? Did you
contact McAfee for support? I'd be very interested to get more details
about this.
Regards,
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Riley Williams" <[email protected]>
To: "William Scott Lockwood III" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Matti Aarnio" <[email protected]>; "Linux Kernel"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Virii on vger.kernel.org lists
| Hi William.
|
| > Of course, non of the common "holes" in OE are left unfixed.
| > People should be responsible to update their mail clients.
| > People using Windows (like me) should also be responsible to
| > maintain current virus software themselves, rather than leaving
| > that job to the mail server, which seems like an unfair burden
| > on the mail server to me.
|
| Depends how you view it - I'd much rather host my mailing lists on a
| server that I knew scans for virii and deals with any it finds than
| one that doesn't.
|
| > I personally use McAfee, as it will auto update itself
| > periodically if you tell it to. Using OE as patched, and McAfee,
| > Virii like the one that just hit are not a problem - they are
| > caught and killed before they can execute...
|
| McAfee isn't a guarantee, no more than any other virii scanner is. I
| used to use McAfee, and had it in auto-update mode. I still got hit by
| FOURTEEN virii within half an hour of it updating itself!
|
| > I got hit once (and if you search through the archives, you'll
| > find a message from me about it - one that I caught holy hell
| > from many of you for, but anyway) and learned from that incident
| > to secure my system. It has not happened since, and won't if I
| > am careful.
|
| Even if you're careful, you can still get hit, so don't rest on your
| laurels...
|
| > The user has the responsibility to be careful, I think. Not the
| > list server.
|
| My own viewpoint is somewhat less blase than yours - the more virii
| scanners between the originator and me, the lower the likelihood of my
| systems getting a virii.
|
| >> Is there any way we can set up an automatic virus scan of all
| >> attachments at vger, and have it deal with any virii at source?
|
| > Yes.
|
| >> Come to that, is there a decent Linux-based virus scanner around?
|
| > Yes.
|
| Perhaps you'd care to give details, since you're so blase about it...
|
| >>> It is analogous on how I am seeing the UNRELIABILITY of people's
| >>> email systems. I see only failure cases, never succesfull
| >>> deliveries!
|
| >> Same here...
|
| > No, you both miss the point.
|
| Oh?
|
| > Some PEOPLE are ignorant or unreliable...
|
| Whether people are ignorant or unreliable has about as much to do with
| whether their computers can catch virii as with whether they can. The
| only people likely to claim otherwise are virii writers, IMHO.
|
| > The email system performs exactly as instructed, no matter if it
| > runs on Linux, or *BSD, or Mickey$oft.
|
| The basic point of this duscussion is that the email system's
| instructions are flawed and need changing.
|
| Best wishes from Riley.
|
|
Thomas Duffy <[email protected]> writes:
> On 31 Jul 2001 23:17:13 +0100, Riley Williams wrote:
>
>> 1. Some virii are text attachments. Your fix doesn't deal wioth them.
>
> huh? how do you write an ASCII text virus. if you can do that, I will
> give you a cookie.
Easy... since most Windows mailers ignore the mime-type, just throw
your normal virus in a text/plain type.
--
Alan Shutko <[email protected]> - In a variety of flavors!
If anything can go wrong, it will.
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Paul G. Allen wrote:
>
> > Well The e-mail looks like it may be a variation on SirCam or Code Red
> > (I could be wrong). It appears to have its own mailer attached (from
> > what I saw in the header - I have not opened the attached .zip) and it
> > came from:
> >
> > cx852567-a.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com
> >
> > Oceanside, California, USA (about 30 miles North of me).
About the same distance from me, also. a cable modem user on the @home
network....
Kelsey Hudson [email protected]
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Craig.
>>> Better than that, simply strip all non-text MIME attachments, or
>>> bounce the messages containing them. End of story.
>> Two problems with that:
>>
>> 1. Some virii are text attachments. Your fix doesn't deal with them.
> I'm not aware of the TEXT/PLAIN viruses (ignoring jokes, er,
> social comments, about the GPL). Could you point me to a sample?
Are you limiting "text attachments" to TEXT/PLAIN ??? If so, you just
killed a large number of very useful attachments. Off the top of my
head...
1. Most patches that are attached rather than inline arrive here
as TEXT/DIFF so you've just killed a lot of very important
attachments.
2. Some of Linus Torvalds' emails come with a TEXT/SIGNATURE
attachment, so you've just prevented him posting from the
computer that does that.
3. One of the assignments at University was to email a specific
MS-Word document (with an auto-starting macro in it) through a
mailer that was specifically set to strip any attachments of the
relevant mime types. In a class of 43 students, only two failed
that assignment, and between the 41 who succeeded, no less than
SEVEN different ways to do so were used, ALL of which used TEXT/
mime types for the enclosure - and FIVE of those were new to the
lecturer as well. The said lecturer also stated that there were
a further NINE ways to do so that none of us had found, but did
not go into detail.
Once you allow TEXT/* to pass, you discover just how many virii will
get straight past your filter without any problems at all. Basically,
you get nowhere doing that...
>> 2. The maintainer of the XXX driver just uploaded a large patch that
>> fixes a major bug in their driver to the mailing list, and zip'd
>> it up to reduce its size. You just bounced it...
> I recall from past discussions that there's considerable
> sentiment on l-k that zip'd patches are undesirable. If the
> patch is inconveniently large, it can be split into several
> messages, or placed on an FTP server. Inconvenient for the
> developer, maybe, but better for the list as a whole.
Personally, my own stance on attachments (zip or otherwise) is that
they should be below the limit at which my mailhost rejects them. On
at least one mailhost I know, emails over 25k are killed without
notice. My own mailhost kills any over 1,536k so that isn't a problem
for me, but others have much smaller limits.
> Separately, I think we've spent enough time with the off-topic
> topic. Perhaps we can move the discussion offline?
Other than your comments, it already is offline...
Best wishes from Riley.
Hi William.
> As I said in another post on the list,
> "http://www.mcafeeb2b.com/naicommon/buy-try/try/products-evals.asp
> Go there, select your language and LINUX, and you will get a
> survey to fill out that then lets you test drive their stuff for
> linux."
I've not seen that post yet, so must apologise for missing it...
> I don't feel that I am particularly blas?, but I will concede
> that you have several good points. My main point was that people
> seem to be more interested in the server doing the scanning for
> them rather than taking responsibility for their own (lack of)
> security. Your view point is just as valid.
I've met people like that, and earn quite a reasonable living from
securing systems for computer novices. In my case, most of my
customers are elderly people who're interested in tracing their
ancestry and have been persuaded by the local computer mart that they
need a computer to do so, and nothing less than the latest all-singing
all-dancing system will do the job - and oh, Internet connectivity isa
a must so you'd better sign up to our company ISP for which we get
?X commission for everybody we sign up. I'm sure you know the type I'm
talking about...
> And I don't think your experience with McAfee as reported is
> typical at all. If it was, I'd still be having problems, and NAI
> would be out of business. How long ago was this? What version of
> the product? What OS? How did you update? What 14 Virii were you
> hit with? Did you contact McAfee for support? I'd be very
> interested to get more details about this.
I contacted McAfee about this straight away. Their response was that
on average, there's a timelapse of 53 hours from a virii first
appearing to their having a signature for it, and as there are at
least 370 new virii produced each day, many with multiple strains, it
was quite possible for such as I reported to happen.
The timeframe was around October 1999, so was mixed in with the
intensive Y2K tracing that was going on then, and I don't have details
of the specific virii any more, so can't advise there...
Best wishes from Riley.
I hope it got out! Perhaps someone already started striping out mail
from OE/Hotmail. :-)
----- Original Message -----
| Hi William.
| I've not seen that post yet, so must apologise for missing it...
Hi William.
>> I've not seen that post yet, so must apologise for missing it...
> I hope it got out! Perhaps someone already started striping out mail
> from OE/Hotmail. :-)
I've now read every email received to date in L-K with either "Test"
or the above as the subject, and it's not amongst them...
Best wishes from Riley.
J Sloan <[email protected]> said:
[...]
> Last I heard, Openmail is still available, but deprecated.
> There was talk that microsoft would kill any attempt to sell
> Openmail to a 3rd party,
How about "giving it as a gift" instead of "selling"? ;-)
> since the idea is to eliminate
> alternatives to exchange.
Oops...
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand Usuario #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 12:19:28AM +0100, Riley Williams wrote:
> on average, there's a timelapse of 53 hours from a virii first
For some reason, seeing "virii" is somewhat painful to my eye.
I know, people invent fantasy plurals, like Vaxen and Unices/Unixen,
but somehow this is worse, yes indeed, it is badder.
[The singular is virus. The plural in English is viruses.
In Latin there is no plural - it is even debatable whether
virus is a noun in Latin - in any case it is indeclinable.]
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Outlook or OE, but you can't just step on
> people who use them.
Sure you can. Microsoft has done that for decades. Look where it got them!
--
Kelsey Hudson [email protected]
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:03:45 -0700 (PDT),
Alan Olsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>The module that used to be called "ide_cs.o" is now called "ide-cs.o".
>It this on purpose or have I found a bug?
drivers/ide/Makefile was added to the kernel in 2.4.3-99pre on approx.
May 19, 2000. The module was called ide-cs.o then and has had that
name ever since. The inconsistency between the kernel and the pcmcia
package is annoying but changing the kernel name now would probably
cause more problems that it solved.
Well, my plans to hack on a weird piece of hardware in order to
experiment with kernel hacking did not go as planned. Seems the device
works fine without any problems at all. (The device is the eFilm Reader-7
PCMCIA PCI card.) The only "hacking" needed was to remove two bits of
plastic that kept me from inserting one card.
But in getting this installed, I found something that does not seem
right...
The module that used to be called "ide_cs.o" is now called "ide-cs.o".
It this on purpose or have I found a bug?
The reason I am wondering is that it requires some serious search and
replace in /etc/pcmcia/config to correct the problem or renaming the
module by hand. Not much of a hassle for me, but others will find it very
confusing. (Especially since the rest of the card service modules seem to
use "_cs.o" instead of "-cs.o".)
[email protected] | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
"All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman