Re: email worm outbreak

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

My server (Pacbell) is now very slow as a result of the worm. (status:
impaired)

Also, I appear to be infected, at least according to the competing
Redshift techie I just spoke to.  She recommended going to Symantec:

w32sobig.f@mm

supposedly for OS (Mac.)

I haven't done this yet.

bc 'till now immune

p.s. Redshift  has better firewalls (not impaired)

John Clement wrote:

> The easiest solution is to have an ISP who offers virus filtering.  T=
> hey
> keep up to date virus tables and then retain any infected messages.  =
> You can
> safely log in an view the message over the web with no chance of infe=
> ction.
> If they use heuristic rules as well they will retain all possibly dan=
> gerous
> attachments.  Combined with spam filtering such a deal makes E-mail m=
> uch
> more pleasurable.  The main drawback is that you must occasionally go=
> and
> look at the list of retained messages and decide which are legitimate=
> .  So
> far I have been sent a fair number of infected messages and they have=
> all
> been retained by the ISP.  And yes, I have to occasionally let throug=
> h a few
> legitimate messages.  However I can do this at my leisure without hav=
> ing to
> look at anything more than the subject and sender info.  Meanwhile th=
> e spam
> is not cluttering my inbox.
>
> And yes, people who use minority OS/mail programs have much less trou=
> ble.
> The ultimate solution to the problem would be to have many (thousands=
> ?) of
> very different OS/mail systems.  This is analogous to the biological
> advantage of genetic diversity.  However, the perceived advantage of
> monoculture seems to outweigh the disadvantages of diversity in the c=
> omputer
> world.  If MAC/OS or Linux were more popular than Windows they would =
> be the
> prime targets.  I have heard that many viruses no longer strike Win 9=
> 5 as
> much because they have been designed to target later versions.  At on=
> e time
> viruses were tailored to strike VMS, but I suspect that OS is now com=
> pletely
> safe.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
>
>
> > =20
> > So this is with what IBM/outlook, etc. people contend.
> > =20
> > bc  who has finally experienced a whatever.
> > =20
> > p.s. Panzers to John
> > =20
> > John S. Denker wrote:
> > =20
> >
> >
> > > On 08/20/2003 08:28 PM, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I've just been bombarded w/ ~ 15 "spams" w/ attachments.
> > > So few? You're lucky.