Archiver > BOARDS-ADMINS > 2001-12 > 1007352270

From: "John A Hansen" <>
Subject: [BD-ADM] RE: [LO] Silly question.....virus-related
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 20:04:30 -0800
In-Reply-To: <3C0A951E.28300.F9B00D@localhost>

Dear Bob;

;;;;;-) keeping one eye on the look out for
Piglets VLF.

Other than my "gloom and doom" forecasting, this is
pretty close to my previous emails of last summer:-)
My main point back then was that:

A: faster penetration rates would occur. I furnished
some references to testing that had been done that
showed how fast a virus could go from first reports
of "in the wild" to a full scale epidemic.
B: More devious ways of hiding the virus in email messages
would take place. Remember this one now quite often has
two virus. one embedded in the HTML email message and one in the
attachment. I predict here and now that embedded virus will
be out in 2002 in text messages. I'm an investor in a company
that is providing that capability to clients for rich media
advertising campaigns based on email. We are on the leading edge of
technology that virus writers are copying and modifying.
C: The email distribution of large mailing lists are targets.
D: The payloads would change because professionals were entering
this game for profit. That changes the whole landscape. This
is NOT some kids doing this for fun.

Bob You make some really really good points regarding the
useage patterns of our users. I made the same points in
emails a few weeks ago. We must look at that criteria.

And now this from mine of last month:

>So my suggestion is form a committee of neutral senior LO
to develop a consistent pattern:
>A: of how and when we notify users.
Faster penetration rates are happening. Can we
wait for some info to trickle down from somewhere
to the users that are totally unsuspecting. As LO
we know what's happening and have some authority
co control the posts. But how does that affect the
risk of potentially infecting users? "What did you
know and when did you know it". To merely take the
position that it's their risk is not a game that I
think is acceptable.
>B: should we have standards of users that can sign on
The weakest user exposes the rest of us to a
epidemic.... but we really want that info from
>C: should we apply a AUP
What is acceptable posting on LO. When is
posting on Off Topics policy an off topic post :-)

This committee looks like a real viable alternative for us.
I'm suggesting: Andrew, Piglet, Vicki, Joan, Bob Fay
George Elting, Darrel Martin

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

>From somebody famous

So that's it.

Bob suggested in an earlier email that I still need to
find a way to bring worms up to warp speed and I've wasted
a couple of hours looking for that :-) He claimed that
Joan knew how to do it.

Best Regards

A few comments inserted below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert W Fay [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 6:55 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [LO] Silly question.....virus-related
> On 1 Dec 2001, at 20:42 Darrell A. Martin <> wrote:
> Hi Darrel,
> > Your main point, that the impact of BadTrans.B is minimal if one
> > continues to use prudent measures to protect oneself, is exactly
> > correct.
> I really didn't think that you meant it quite the way it sounded.
> <g> And I
> think we need to get out of and stop tolerating this "oh my,
> another virus,
> whatever are we to do" routine. There are multiple known solid ways to
> achieve a far better degree of virus security than is evidenced
> by some list members.

And so .... ?

> However, as list admins we spend a disproportionate amount of
> > our time dealing with people who can't (figuratively speaking) figure
> > out where the "On" switch is for their e-mail.
> Can't is a funny word and I think we should add won't and don't. Can't
> from a user that has been online 6 months might be acceptable, can't
> from a user that has been online 6 years is quite a different animal.

But what can you do about it realistically. A test or grades for the
old timer? Is this inverse discrimination?

> >
> > I'm focusing on the issue of how list admins have to handle people who
> > have NOT been prudent.
> Yes, that seems to be the right area to focus. And we need to
> realize that
> there are big lists, little lists, new and old lists, different
> aptitudes and
> interests and a variety of other factors that make each list a little bit
> different than the next. But we also need to realize that computer
> technology is endemic throughout society, and plays a central role in
> some aspects of genealogy, just as other modern technologies like
> pencils, paper, copy machines, microfilm readers and a variety of other
> innovations. But a person that hasn't mastered (or even tried to master)
> any of these technologies really can't be considered competent, and the
> same is true of basic computer skills, including virus protection.

but what do we do about it? What about the case where they really don't
want AV software for various reasons. I can smell a virus and don't want
the headache of running the AV.

> I will probably get some more flak from some, but I am encouraging
> somewhat some lists to discuss virus issues as a closely related topic to
> genealogy on list, but obviously not as a main focus. I have also
> provided them with some virus message boards for access to the
> experts, and some other resources. The more they individually learn
> about viruses, the more they can help their fellow list members and the
> more successful they will all be.

This can't be from Bob Fay :-) Who is this imposter ?

> John Hansen will probably chide me and remind me that the "gloom and
> doom virus" is right around the corner and subscribers can't possibly
> cope with it. In actual fact, many lists have people on them with some
> expertise and really that can be pretty helpful for all.

If they are allowed to post.

> >We can't just let them suffer the consequences,
> > if doing so causes a large number of the rest of our subscribers to
> > suffer with them (even if the latter contribute, by their own
> > negligence, to their own suffering).
> Hmmm, well I don't think this is a given. If you or I do something stupid
> we are going to have to deal with the consequences. Should it necessarily
> be different for subscribers? Where is their motivation to change if they
> never suffer some unpleasant consequences of their negligence?
> The point of a RootsWeb mailing
> > list is not to be a testing ground for computer expertise.
> Granted, though by and large Rootsweb IS a telecommunications
> experiment using computers, and as such, a basic level of computer
> expertise is required and, as much as we may not want to admit
> it, viruses and other baddies are here to stay, so subscribers
need basic competence in that area too.
> It is to
> > disseminate genealogical information. Therefore, we succeed best when we
> > include the most folks.
> Right, but viruses are pretty much taboo with a lot of folks and we drive
> them away from lists when we tolerate poor antivirus practices.
> One side effect of such broad contact is, those
> > of us who take the time to get immunized still have to deal with the
> > victims of the plague . . .
> Not quite the same. Few victims of the plague knowingly made a decision
> not to get a vaccine. Thats why we call them victims. But very few
> people haven't had a chance to learn at least a little about viruses and
> there are many sources of solid information if they only decided to learn
> about them. But they are not going to do that unless they are held
> responsible for their actions when they propagate viruses.

Now that is a big step and could be real interesting for not
only the subscribers, but how about the LO Admins and even
Rootsweb? This was the gist of some of my earlier emails. I don't
think it's a big stretch for a smart attorney to make this
leap either.

> I'll put up with a certain amount of
> > aggravation, if it increases my chances of hearing from that one shy
> > subscriber who has the key to Sarah MOONEY's ancestry.
> The key words here are "a certain amount" It no doubt varies from list to
> list. But it would seem across the board that "a certain amount" should
> be getting smaller and smaller every month
> Heck, I sub to some of these lists, and they don't tolerate viruses.
> Bob
> ==============================
> Visit for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1
> Source for Family History Online. Go to:

This thread: