"Recipients of ABRF List" <abrf@aecom.yu.edu>
Subject: RE: viruses and attachments
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:10:19 -0400
Message-ID: <NEBBJOMIGLGPCBGHCMKNCELGCCAA.michael_shiue@pbcpeptide.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010514100307.00a53d90@chem-mail.chemistry.gatech.edu>
To: Recipients of ABRF List <abrf@aecom.yu.edu>
Sender: Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities <abrf-request@aecom.yu.edu>
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: abrf-request@aecom.yu.edu
Hi, David Bostwick. You are not alone. I totally agree with you. Before
there is a sure way to get rid of virus in attachment, it is definitely
necessary to ban attachment. There are too many warning message of virus in
ABRF mails in the past weeks. Why ABRF's members have to take the risk? I
do not open any attachments at all, no matter how attractive of the title
looks like.
Michael G. Shiue
======================
-----Original Message-----
From: Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities
[mailto:abrf-request@aecom.yu.edu]On Behalf Of David Bostwick
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 10:13 AM
To: Recipients of ABRF List
Subject: Re: viruses and attachments
At 08:54 AM 5/14/01 +1000, Roger Murphy wrote:
>I think it's about time this bulletin board/newsgroup/mail list bit the
bullet and totally banned attachments that may contain viruses. I've lost
count of the number of viruses that have been detected in attachments on
this list over the past couple of weeks.
>
>Am I in a minority here? Do the rest of you feel the same or are you happy
to take the risk that one of these is going to escape the virus detection
software? I know our systems administrator is warning me that I will have
to remove myself from this mailing list if this continues.
>
>Any other thoughts out there???
>
>Cheers,
>Roger
If the virus can't be removed before the articles are mailed to everyone,
then ban attachments. I know this problem is being worked on, but several
viruses in a week or so, and the flood of unnecessary messages that follows
each virus, show that the situation needs fixing now. Since everyone can't
or doesn't keep the definitions current, or perhaps chooses not to use virus
protection software, more of these things will show up. Sooner or later,
the virus is going to be newer than the definition file. As I said before,
there are other ways to handle attachments which don't pose a danger to the
rest of the list members. Someone else noted that the attachments are a
very small part of the information here. At present, the danger from
viruses, as well as the aggravation of the alerts and "Warning, Will
Robinson" messages, outweigh the value of attachments.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 14:16:29 EST