GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 1998-07 > 0900730586


From: Kevin Ettery <>
Subject: Re: VIRUS Warning
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 19:56:26 -0700


Peter,

Sorry, but I'm afraid that I must come down on Barney's side on this one. A specific plain
Email CANNOT posibly cause a shutdown problem. Barney does point out that attachments can
possibly cause problems and, quite rightly, you should always scan attachments (particularly
executable files and macro-supported formatted data file - ie Word for Windows).

Your reported shutdown was probably caused by one of the following:
1/ The offending Email, which may be plain text, may have been that large that the Email had
severe convulsions trying to digest it.
2/ Coincidence. There may have already been a virus at work and, when the system ground to a
halt, someone remembered getting the suspect message just before all hell broke loose.
3/ The Email system may perform some special processing on incoming Emails and it may have had
problems with either digesting the source address or following the processing instructions.
or
4/ Your Email system automatically launches attachments and the suspect message may indeed have
had a infected attachment (which is very annoying). This infection may have been deliberate or
accidental.

But, anyway, please dont blast anyone for stating correct facts please! The facts, as stated by
Barney, are correct (including the bit about pachyderm odure).

Regards

Kevin Ettery
(an Electrical/Electronic Engineer who is fairly familiar with how the internet and Email
packages handle Email)

Peter Williams wrote:
>
> Recently, I reported that a shut down to a part of a very large modern, up to date,
> computer system could be caused by a SINGLE E-MAIL. You will have all recieved the
> comment from Barney that this was the biggest load of elephant ordure that he had
> seen in a long time.
>
> "If you think you've been subject to verbal abuse, you may have." So, I consulted a
> reference work of some note. Today, I looked up "ordure" and in my trusty Shorter
> Oxford English Dictionary. Here's how the learned folks in Oxford, circa 1933,
> defined "ordure." And, here's what Barney appears to have viewed my report of a
> situation where 3000+ people had part of their system down for 2 days and lots of
> money spent of getting back up.
>
> Quote: "(1) Filth, dirt. Also fig. of foul language: (2) Excement, dung,". Add the
> size of an elephants rear end and you can see the enormity of the disgust! Trouble
> is I was there, system down, and Barney was elsewhere presumably with his elephant!
>
> Barney, you are our expert and guide to family history but your knowledge of what
> can actually happens on computer systems appears limited, I'm also disgusted that
> that you should hide behind $1,000,000 dollar word when your opinions stripped down
> are at the 1 cent level.
>
> The opinion of subscribers requires respect. Recently, others in this group has
> shown little respect on several occaisions especially to newbies. I wrote about this
> before. I note the continuing trend by a minority toward trashing of individual
> opinion with multiple e-mails of increasing intensity/stupidity?. Back off Guys.
> Lifes too short! Don't sweat the small stuff.
>
> Everyone we are researching is 6 foot under or in cans on a shelf. It wont be long
> before we are there too. Lets get the research done and leave a legacy.
>
> Peter
>
> Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake wrote:
>
> > In article <>, Peter Williams <pwilliams@v-
> > wave.com> writes
> > >Herschal, you are likely only too right unfortunately. This week we had a case
> > >of malicious e-mail. This shut down some of our e-mail system and messed up our
> > >PC's before the word got out. " Don't open e-mails from XXXX." All you had to
> > >do was open a seemingly employee written e-mail and then your system crashed.
> > >It will be interesting to see how this one gets fixed thats for sure.
> > >
> > This really is the biggest load of elephant ordure that I have seen for
> > a long time. Not even worthy of a Turner prize. :)
> >
> > Let's go back to basics. An e-mail message consists entirely of ASCII
> > characters that are interpreted and viewed in your e-mail reader
> > software. That software has no routines built into it to do anything
> > else. In other words the only thing you can do with e-mail is look at
> > it. It can't look at your system.
> >
> > E-mail attachments are a different story. It is possible to add a binary
> > file (such as a program or a graphic) to an email. This binary file is
> > encoded into ASCII characters (usually using a MIME, Multipurpose
> > Internet Mail Extensions, protocol). If you look at it as ASCII as your
> > email software does, it will be gibberish and also harmless. If your
> > MIME decoder converts it back into its binary form (so you can run the
> > program or view the graphic), then, and only then, is there a danger of
> > virus infection should someone have sent you a malicious executable
> > program or macro. But this takes a conscious act from you to do. If your
> > kids won't accept candy from strangers, neither should you run .exe
> > files sent as email attachments before you virus check them
> > independently.
> >
> > The bottom line is that the act of opening and viewing *any* e-mail
> > message is intrinsically safe. Anyone who tells you otherwise is guilty
> > of spreading FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt). Or should that be Fuming
> > Ulephant Dung?
> >
> > --
> > Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake
> >
> > Drake Software web site: http://www.tdrake.demon.co.uk
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Recently, I reported that a shut down to a part of a very large
> modern, up to date, computer system could be caused by a SINGLE
> E-MAIL. You will have all recieved the comment from Barney that this
> was the biggest load of elephant ordure that he had seen in a long
> time.
>
> "If you think you've been subject to verbal abuse, you may have." So,
> I consulted a reference work of some note. Today, I looked up "ordure"
> and in my trusty Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Here's how the
> learned folks in Oxford, circa 1933, defined "ordure." And, here's
> what Barney appears to have viewed my report of a situation where
> 3000+ people had part of their system down for 2 days and lots of
> money spent of getting back up.
>
> Quote: "(1) Filth, dirt. Also fig. of foul language: (2) Excement,
> dung,". Add the size of an elephants rear end and you can see the
> enormity of the disgust! Trouble is I was there, system down, and
> Barney was elsewhere presumably with his elephant!
>
> Barney, you are our expert and guide to family history but your
> knowledge of what can actually happens on computer systems appears
> limited, I'm also disgusted that that you should hide behind
> $1,000,000 dollar word when your opinions stripped down are at the 1
> cent level.
>
> The opinion of subscribers requires respect. Recently, others in this
> group has shown little respect on several occaisions especially to
> newbies. I wrote about this before. I note the continuing trend by a
> minority toward trashing of individual opinion with multiple e-mails
> of increasing intensity/stupidity?. Back off Guys. Lifes too short!
> Don't sweat the small stuff.
>
> Everyone we are researching is 6 foot under or in cans on a shelf. It
> wont be long before we are there too. Lets get the research done and
> leave a legacy.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake wrote:
>
> In article <>, Peter Williams
> <pwilliams@v-
> wave.com> writes
> >Herschal, you are likely only too right unfortunately. This
> week we had a case
> >of malicious e-mail. This shut down some of our e-mail
> system and messed up our
> >PC's before the word got out. " Don't open e-mails from
> XXXX." All you had to
> >do was open a seemingly employee written e-mail and then
> your system crashed.
> >It will be interesting to see how this one gets fixed thats
> for sure.
> >
> This really is the biggest load of elephant ordure that I
> have seen for
> a long time. Not even worthy of a Turner prize. :)
>
> Let's go back to basics. An e-mail message consists entirely
> of ASCII
> characters that are interpreted and viewed in your e-mail
> reader
> software. That software has no routines built into it to do
> anything
> else. In other words the only thing you can do with e-mail
> is look at
> it. It can't look at your system.
>
> E-mail attachments are a different story. It is possible to
> add a binary
> file (such as a program or a graphic) to an email. This
> binary file is
> encoded into ASCII characters (usually using a MIME,
> Multipurpose
> Internet Mail Extensions, protocol). If you look at it as
> ASCII as your
> email software does, it will be gibberish and also harmless.
> If your
> MIME decoder converts it back into its binary form (so you
> can run the
> program or view the graphic), then, and only then, is there
> a danger of
> virus infection should someone have sent you a malicious
> executable
> program or macro. But this takes a conscious act from you to
> do. If your
> kids won't accept candy from strangers, neither should you
> run .exe
> files sent as email attachments before you virus check them
> independently.
>
> The bottom line is that the act of opening and viewing *any*
> e-mail
> message is intrinsically safe. Anyone who tells you
> otherwise is guilty
> of spreading FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt). Or should
> that be Fuming
> Ulephant Dung?
>
> --
> Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake
>
> Drake Software web site: http://www.tdrake.demon.co.uk
>
>

This thread: