Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:10:10 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
From: Candy Madigan <candymadigan at mindspring.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: New virus for PC users to watch out for--W32.Yaha.K at mm
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

However, there is some difference of opinion about what does and does not
consist of "spam".  For instance, I greatly resented your blocking my open
invitation to the list to attend a PartyLite Candle party at my house in
Dec.  That was an inappropriate use of your power as the host for this
list.  I am still angry about it.

At 11:48 PM 01/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Meridel Newton <meridel at ashcomp.com> wrote:
>
> > There are viruses out there for every operating system.  There are
> > even viruses for cell phones and palm tops.  Microsoft may be the
> > most vulnerable due to prevalence, but it's by no means only an MS
> > issue.
>
>There are no viruses for a DEC VT420 terminal, which is what I'm
>using.  There can't be.  It's not programmable.  All it does is
>display text on the screen, and forward whatever I type to the
>attached modem.
>
>I suppose there could be, and probably are, viruses for the operating
>system my ISP uses.  But that's not an issue unless I deliberately
>choose to run them.
>
>Microsoft uses anti-concepts.  An anti-concept is something which
>has the look and feel of a concept, but has the opposite effect,
>disorganizing thoughts, and throwing things into confusion.
>
>Anti-concepts include words which either distinguish between several
>things which are the same, or lump together several things that are
>different as if they were the same.
>
>For instance the word "open".  What does it mean to "open" an email
>message?  It means something to display it on the screen to it can
>be read by a person.  It means something very different to execute
>code contained in it.  Microsoft's anti-concept "open" is largely
>responsible for the plague of viruses which has caused billions of
>dollars of damages.
>
>Before I started blocking all email that contained attachments, I
>often chose to display the contents of the attachments on my screen.
>This was completely harmless (other than being an enormous waste of
>time, since 99.9% of them were spam or viruses, rather than anything
>informative or entertaining).
>
>This list benefits from my discarding all attachments and HTML email,
>since that guarantees that nothing received via this list can ever
>contain a virus.
>
>So far, I've also succeeded in keeping the list completely free of
>spam, but there's no absolute guarantee there.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - kfl at keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
>I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
>unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable.  Please do not send me
>HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

Candy