Stuart Longland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
> > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >>Filtering the lists leads to a slippery slope. What happens when
> >>you start getting false positives?
> >
> > True, but why not filtering binary attachments? *If* you have to
> > send an attachmen
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
>>Filtering the lists leads to a slippery slope. What happens when you
>>start getting false positives?
>
>
> True, but why not filtering binary attachments? *If* you have to send an
> attachment to these lists, it should either be plain text or
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Filtering the lists leads to a slippery slope. What happens when you
> start getting false positives?
True, but why not filtering binary attachments? *If* you have to send an
attachment to these lists, it should either be plain text or your
gpg-signature.
Regards,
--
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 14:18 +0300, Alin Dobre wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am I the only one receiving this message? I have received another one
> last days. If so, there is someone infected that is subscribed to this
> list. Could be smithj himself, but usually the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan Smith wrote:
> i also got that, much to my surprise. i send all email through toucan
> and my ip is 166.82.xxx.xxx, so it can't be me. i run only gentoo and
> mozilla tb, none of which are prone to worms of this kind. i have no
> idea why th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alin Dobre wrote:
> Am I the only one receiving this message? I have received another one
> last days. If so, there is someone infected that is subscribed to this
> list. Could be smithj himself, but usually the sender is forged. The two
> emails come
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am I the only one receiving this message? I have received another one
last days. If so, there is someone infected that is subscribed to this
list. Could be smithj himself, but usually the sender is forged. The two
emails come from: [194.225.228.20] (he