The Windows-using fuckwits are at it again.

[reddragdiva]

How 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.

Comments

Re: Not meaning to rain on your parade

[damerell.livejournal.com]

It certainly looked as if you didn't know that; the alternative, which you seem to be confirming, is that you knew it but were unwilling to admit that the design of Microsoft's mail clients is in fact inferior in this regard.

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?