![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reddragdivaHow many copies of the latest fucking virus are in my fucking mail? TOO FUCKING MANY. With a new one on average every one hundred and fifty seconds for the past three days! I think the Bayesian filter is this close to deciding the word 'Microsoft' indicates spam.
Your excuses are tired. The bogus analogies, the belligerent whininess. You talk like junkies in danger of being cut off. YOUR COMPUTERS ARE AGENTS OF CONTAGION. THEY DESERVE TO BE BANISHED FROM THE NET FORTHWITH. I wish to declare my full and ardent support for this move. People who complain this is unfaaair and toooo haaard are like people who run over kids and whose only defence is that they can't be expected to know how to drive and therefore couldn't possibly be held responsible.
I fully expect the comments on this entry to be filled with lame justifications, ridiculous analogies and badly-misremembered Microsoft FUD. Don't whine to me for daring to complain about your intrinsically unsecurable systems - just CLEAN UP AFTER YOURSELVES AND YOUR COMPATRIOTS, YOU SKANKY SHITBAGS.
(Thunderbird seems to detect the web page variant of the virus, but not the mailbounce one - it doesn't like running slabs of MIME-encoded binary through the filter. Filter on the string TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA// - that's the beginning of the virus code, and will nail it nicely.)
Note: I expect things to be even worse when popular Linux is afflicted with self-propagating rootkits. For the same reason.
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 08:53 am (UTC)The demon of multiple proprietary standards is particularly absurd when discussing email (and before you weasel again, this whole thing started because of Microsoft's crappy email clients; that is what we're talking about) which has been so afflicted primarily by Microsoft.
The reason there are so few people writing malicious code for unix/Linux
based systems is not because they are so much better
In this particular case it is because they are better. Specifically, few if any of the mail clients in use on these platforms make it trivial for executable content in email to be run, which is the exact cause of all the recent woes. Therefore it is not, as you said, naive to assume that there are similar problems; this class of problem simply does not exist in the UNIX world.
You advance another straw man; I never claimed that every mail client which is not OE is bad, simply that there exist some good mail clients.
Incidentally, what is a "unix mainframe"? This, like "none of the standard processes are running", reveals to me that too much of your ideas about computers come from movies.
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 09:27 am (UTC)What this says to me is "having run out of ways to misrepresent your argument, I have nothing more to say."
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 09:57 am (UTC)I also find it curious how my ignorance manifests itself as a series of technical facts that you are forced to evade, whereas your superior knowledge manifests as evasions and your delicately phrased requests.
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 10:26 am (UTC)You also say that I don't look at the real issue, when in fact it is you who has repeatedly chosen to misrepresent what I have said in order to produce something you can argue against, but that I didn't actually say. It is you, not me, who has chosen to resort to abuse rather than discuss the issue at hand; that you then have the temerity to accuse me of calling you names suggests an impressive degree of rationalization.
I do not recognise that you have 22 years of experience; you remind me of the guys on Usenet who claim to be senior management, but write in l33t-speak. Now I think about it, I don't know many people over about 18 who still think random capitalisation is the coolest thing ever.
The part of "fuck off" I don't understand is the one where I'm supposedly rude and arrogant. If you are not interested in discussing this any further you will just have to stop; I'm quite happy to keep it up until you stop being amusing, or Diva tells me to quit cluttering up his journal.
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 10:58 am (UTC)When I say that you have misrepresented me that is not merely imagination. Firstly with the sarcastic "I also bow to your greater wisdom and now realise that no-one ever hacked a computer/network before the advent of Windows" you misrepresent me; indeed you have done so again in this message, by pretending that I claim that the alternatives are completely secure. However, I've said that nowhere; the most definite statement I've made is that I personally have never been successfully attacked via my mail client in eight years, in spite of taking no special precautions beyond selecting the right tool for the job.
You also claimed that I said that all other mail clients were good. Again, this is simply not true. All I have said is that _some_ mail clients are good, and few other mail clients have the deficiency that has produces the recent trouble.
I'm not worried about your capitalisation style, I simply observe that it is almost universally popular amongst children, few of whom have "22 years experience" of anything.
It is not aggressive or rude to be skeptical that you have 22 years experience, and yet are ignorant of ordinary computing terminology.
If you are being rude too, is it not a little hypocritical of you to criticise me for it, especially when your rudeness involves streams of abuse and my supposed rudeness involves endeavouring to discuss the topic at hand?
This is twice now you have flounced out of this thread. I wonder how many more you'll manage?
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 11:43 am (UTC)Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 12:32 pm (UTC)However I suspect two flouncings-out is our lot, alas.
Coming to B-Movie?
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 12:44 pm (UTC)Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 01:04 pm (UTC)[Seriously, I think I owe you a swift one or two - and otherwise I'll just have to get Ali comically drunk and you know how I hate that.]
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-10-01 04:53 am (UTC)When is the next B-movie anyway? Normally around mid-month, isn't it?
np: Jane's Addiction - Been Caught StealingRe: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 12:51 pm (UTC)These people ... I have the LJ comment notifications saved, though. Is it ethical to post them to the thread myself?
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 01:04 pm (UTC)I'd post 'em - they were public to start with.
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 03:34 pm (UTC)joel at fysh dot org? ;)
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 03:39 pm (UTC)Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-09-30 05:39 pm (UTC)I deleted them because I do not wish anyone else to wade in on my behalf, never mind yours/his...I want an end to it...So, by deleting my comments, I have made it impossible to defend my point of view...
But it's your LJ, so, it's up to you..it's your LJ...I haven't said anything I don't stand behind
but it says a LOT about BOTH of of you that you haven't bothered to contact me directly...
But then, I didn't expect any more
It's your LJ...I won't be commenting here ever again
Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade
Date: 2003-10-04 10:22 pm (UTC)Not a man of your word, i take it.