[JA] Bugbear is baaaack!
- From: James E Henderson <jim.henderson@xxxxxxxx>
- To: juno_accmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:51:02 -0400
> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:54:47 -0400
> Subject: [JA] Re: BuggyBear
> From: rsgilmore@xxxxxxxx
RSG> Took a few hits yesterday & saw something wild
> -- maybe others have some knowledge:
What are hits? Successful searches or detections of something?
Successful attacks?
> Subject: [JA] Bugbear is baaaack!
> From: carolynstoffel@xxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 21:45:50 EDT
>JH> Why reply to virus messages? Safer, if they are from known people,
>> to send a separate message, not a reply.
CS> To let the person know about the problem.
CS> Because "edit, cut, paste" doesn't put the > quote symbol in.
Perhaps I'm overly cautious but if a text is suspicious, I'd rather not
duplicate it by any means, not even by quoting. It only takes a few
moments to type a line giving date, time, Subject Line, name of
attachment, and other identifying information. Real messages from real
people are an everyday matter, and of course I quote them by the "reply"
function but a virus suspect from someone I know is a rarity, calling for
special handling. This is especially so when quoting produces an
anomaly.
>JH > How do you know a message contains a virus,
>> without knowing which virus it is?
CS> Identifying one? Depending on the virus, a "silly" private
> message from a recognized name with all kinds of heiroglyphics
> as an attachment which is identified as an .exe, .gif, or .jpg file.
Ah. It's kind of like this:
"Yesterday I saw a dangerous wild animal. It had rabies."
"How do you know it had rabies?"
"It was a dog. Stray dogs sometimes have rabies."
I know it takes a little longer to give reasons for suspecting the
message had a virus, but better that than simply to say "It's a virus"
while keeping quiet about your grounds for suspicion.
> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:16:27 -0400
> Subject: [JA] Spam Mailing Lists
> From: Thos Potts <tjpjr@xxxxxxxx>
TP> Someone at Juno must be involved in some
> of the spam we get. I just got two muti-
> million dollar scams from Nigeria? via two
> mailings where the bcc?s came thru wuth
> all addresses listed as @juno.com.
I have received similar scam spams, but I do not see the connection
between your two sentences. Surely a spammer can buy a sucker list, sort
by domain, and send one message to thousands of users of the same ISP.
That's when they are using a known target list. They can also take a
million known addresses, change the domain names to @juno.com thus
creating a list to go fishing for unknown alternate addresses. They can
create similar lists, to spam unknown users of aol.com, erols.com,
yahoo.com, etc.
I'm not saying Juno's payroll is definitely free of traitors peddling
confidential information, but an accusation must provide evidence.
TP>I now have, between the two lists, approximately
> 3000 valid Juno account addresses available
> to me in reproducable form.
No duds? That's an impressive record, since spam list peddlers seldom
provide such high quality merchandise. What did you do to determine that
all three thousand are valid?
To unsubscribe, send a message to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe juno_accmail" in the body or subject.
OR visit //freelists.org
~*~
Other related posts:
