Science > Physics > Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Robert Clark" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2003 02:54:50 AM |
| Object: |
Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
A letter I sent to Yahoo on this topic:
=============================================================================
Subject: Why your virus detection method has to be extended.
I was sent the attached message. It contained the "Microsoft security
update" virus. Frequently this virus gets sent without any significant
text in the body, just the attachment. Therefore asking users to
Filter out these messages by searching on key phrases in the body of
the message won't work.
My problem, and I'm sure alot of other of your customers' problem, is
not being infected by these viruses. It's that they are so large and
get sent so frequently they quickly cause the account limits to be
violated, making our accounts unusable. Again, I KNOW not to download
these without scanning. So please don't respond again by telling me to
scan any attachment before downloading. My point is I don't want these
worthless, virus spreading emails sent to my account to begin with.
If you give users the ability to scan the attachments with a virus
scanner, AND YOU DO WANT THEM TO DO THAT EVERYTIME, why not give users
the option of doing that automatically for them, if that is what they
CHOOSE?
I don't want to be a pain about this but your policy really is
illogical. You want users to scan the attachments ALL THE TIME. And
you do the scanning at your end using the Norton virus scanner. So the
argument about the increase in processing time at your end doesn't
even hold water - IF YOU HONESTLY DO WANT USERS TO SCAN THEIR
ATTACHMENTS EVERYTIME.
The only conclusion you could draw is that you are in actuality glad
users sometimes don't scan their attachments (thereby increasing the
spread of the viruses) because this saves on processing on your end.
But you do realize of course this means you are glad that you
increase the spread of email viruses.
Bob Clark
=============================================================================
*****************************************************************************
From: Robert Clark (rgregoryclark@yahoo.com)
Subject: O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle, sci.space.history, sci.space.policy,
sci.astro, sci.physics
Date: 2003-03-27 19:28:08 PST
I had been getting the message copied below to this particular email
account several times. I previously just deleted it without
downloading the claimed "security patch".
This email account frequently receives spam mail since I post to
Usenet from it. I assumed that this email was just another means of
fraudulently directing users to a commercial site.
I was surprised therefore when I scanned it using the service
provided by Yahoo email and found it contained a virus. Here is the
result of the scanning by Yahoo email:
Scan Results [Original Message]
File name: q150632.exe
File type: application/x-msdownload
Scan result: Virus W32.Gibe.B@mm found. File not cleaned.
This virus is described here:
F-Secure Virus Descriptions
NAME: Gibe.B
ALIAS: I-Worm.Gibe.B, Gibe_B
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/gibe_b.shtml
As stated on this web site, Microsoft never distributes unsolicited
security patches through email. If you received an unsolicited email
claiming to be a security patch notify your ISP of its content and
origin.
ANY attachments from ANY source should always be scanned before
opening or downloading. This applies even to known sources since there
are viruses that send themselves out from a users infected computer
without the user being aware of it.
There was a long-list of email addresses in the address header that
were also sent the email. I recognized some of them as frequent
posters to the sci.space.* groups. Therefore posters to these groups
who don't use anti-spam addresses should scan their systems for the
Gibe virus.
Yahoo provides a service to optionally scan an attachment before
downloading. I think it should be *mandatory* that attachments are
scanned before downloading. I've been informed that mandatory scanning
is the policy of Hotmail.com .
I think a good way to reduce viruses sent through email is for each
ISP to notify their subscribers when a new one turns up. The
notification should describe what the contents of the affected email
looks like and
should instruct the subscribers not to open or download any
attachments in the email but to only forward the email to a given
address provided by the ISP.
Bob Clark
==============================================================
From: "John B****" <jb****@ihug.com.au>
To: {a long list of e-mail addresses}
Subject: Prove that update from Microsoft.
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:56:00 +1100
Microsoft Client
this is the latest version of security update, the
"March 2003, Cumulative Patch" update which eliminates all
known security vulnerabilities affecting Internet Explorer,
Outlook and Outlook Express as well as five newly discovered
vulnerabilities. Install now to protect your computer from these
vulnerabilities, the most serious of which could allow an attacker to
run executable on your system. This update includes the functionality
of all previously released patches.
System requirements:
Win 9x/Me/2000/NT/XP
This update applies to:
Microsoft Internet Explorer, version 4.01 and later
Microsoft Outlook, version 8.00 and later
Microsoft Outlook Express, version 4.01 and later
Recommendation:
Customers should install the patch at the earliest opportunity.
How to install:
Run attached file. Click Yes on displayed dialog box.
How to use:
You don't need to do anything after installing this item.
Microsoft Technical Support is available at
http://support.microsoft.com/
For security-related information about Microsoft products,
please visit the Microsoft Security Advisor web site at
http://www.microsoft.com/security
Contact us at
http://www.microsoft.com/isapi/goregwiz.asp?target=/contactus/contactus.asp
Please do not reply to this message. It was sent from an unmonitored
e-mail address and we are unable to respond to any replies.
Thank you for using Microsoft products.
Attachment
q150632.exe
..exe file
==============================================================
*****************************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
28 Sep 2003 01:45:23 PM |
|
|
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:832ea96d.0309272354.45c6160a@posting.google.com...
| A letter I sent to Yahoo on this topic:
[snip]
Switch to hotmail. It will let you set an option to automatically delete
all junk mail from its servers as soon as it detects it as junk mail. All
those worm emails always ended up in my junk mail folder. No problems any
longer. I think in the few years that I have had hotmail, only one
message got routed wrongly to my junk mail folder and it wasn't important
anywise. I only use hotmail for websites that ask for an email address to
"register". So my hotmail address is where all the junk goes to anywise.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "DrPostman" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
29 Sep 2003 08:40:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:45:23 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:832ea96d.0309272354.45c6160a@posting.google.com...
| A letter I sent to Yahoo on this topic:
[snip]
Switch to hotmail. It will let you set an option to automatically delete
all junk mail from its servers as soon as it detects it as junk mail. All
those worm emails always ended up in my junk mail folder. No problems any
longer. I think in the few years that I have had hotmail, only one
message got routed wrongly to my junk mail folder and it wasn't important
anywise. I only use hotmail for websites that ask for an email address to
"register". So my hotmail address is where all the junk goes to anywise.
FrediFizzx
My junk mail folder is what is getting full from those 144 or 135k
size attempts at sending the virus. Hotmail is just a vulnerable.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULTŪ member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com
"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy
"No, the next step, Doktor, is that you start diagnosing illegally and
stupidly online, and get your license revoked."
-viveshwar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Investor0329" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
29 Sep 2003 09:36:44 PM |
|
|
I have sent Yahoo a complaint regarding this spam twice. Twice they
sent me response that DID ANSWER MY PROBLEM. I told them that this
this is
filling up my email..yet their response is some cut and paste lingo
about
viruses in general. I don't think anyone is reading these..I think it
is an automatic response system.
They better do something fast..because my yahoo email is WORTHLESS
until
this spam is stopped.
Anyone got their phone number?..none listed under their help
selection.
DrPostman <Look@mysig.foremail> wrote in message news:<hfdgnvcsolerek5gpoqq2jocrhg66muapb@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:45:23 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:832ea96d.0309272354.45c6160a@posting.google.com...
| A letter I sent to Yahoo on this topic:
[snip]
Switch to hotmail. It will let you set an option to automatically delete
all junk mail from its servers as soon as it detects it as junk mail. All
those worm emails always ended up in my junk mail folder. No problems any
longer. I think in the few years that I have had hotmail, only one
message got routed wrongly to my junk mail folder and it wasn't important
anywise. I only use hotmail for websites that ask for an email address to
"register". So my hotmail address is where all the junk goes to anywise.
FrediFizzx
My junk mail folder is what is getting full from those 144 or 135k
size attempts at sending the virus. Hotmail is just a vulnerable.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULTŪ member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com
"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy
"No, the next step, Doktor, is that you start diagnosing illegally and
stupidly online, and get your license revoked."
-viveshwar
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Simberg |
29 Sep 2003 10:56:08 PM |
|
|
Im suprised at you Simberg . You know me and like us billionaires yet
you wount practice what you preach . This is a physics NG and not a
hang out for nasaflunkies to post of topic junk
with no regard for the rules. How would you like us infesting your NG.
What is it exsactly you are after , do you have a point in your
reluctance to obey house rules ? I respect anyones desire to better
thier minds in this forum and don't like it abused unless the regs
abuse it . You are not a reg here and only infested this NG to spite me
..
I will see what I can do about your mail if you stop spaming this NG .
A simple deal even nasa can understand .
Strawman and the Windwalker .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wassup" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
30 Sep 2003 02:26:40 AM |
|
|
"Investor0329" <
my yahoo email is WORTHLESS
until
this spam is stopped.
Lately I have been running into a lot of people who have cable internet and use
yahoo or hotmail for their e-mail because don't know that their ISP provides
e-mail service via an e-mail server.
If you set up an account through your ISP Internet Svc Provider and then run
Outlook Express, Eudora, etc etc "an e-mail program", then you can use
Mailwasher, to delete the junk mail at the server level, which is the next best
thing to not getting it at all.
I am totally stunned that the recent onslaught of MS Upgrade virus e-mails has
not been mentioned in the press as they usually cover stuff like this. Anyone
know why this has not been on the news?
.
|
|
|
| User: "mb0329" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
30 Sep 2003 08:42:13 PM |
|
|
I am not using Outlook. My isp is msn.com and I use msn 8.5.
I am having problmes with my web based yahoo email..it has become
worthless as it gets filled hourly by these Swen messages and the
attachments.
I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT YAHOO DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS !!
Yet it has been happening since 9/18 nonstop..
and I've seen no message from yahoo.
I've sent them the problem..but they send me these cut and paste
response that do not address the problem of the email box getting
filled.
Does anyone have a phone number for yahoo?
"wassup" <al_gore@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vnic1kkf92ll1e@corp.supernews.com>...
"Investor0329" <
my yahoo email is WORTHLESS
until
this spam is stopped.
Lately I have been running into a lot of people who have cable internet and use
yahoo or hotmail for their e-mail because don't know that their ISP provides
e-mail service via an e-mail server.
If you set up an account through your ISP Internet Svc Provider and then run
Outlook Express, Eudora, etc etc "an e-mail program", then you can use
Mailwasher, to delete the junk mail at the server level, which is the next best
thing to not getting it at all.
I am totally stunned that the recent onslaught of MS Upgrade virus e-mails has
not been mentioned in the press as they usually cover stuff like this. Anyone
know why this has not been on the news?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
13 Oct 2003 03:50:54 AM |
|
|
I am not using Outlook. My isp is msn.com and I use msn 8.5.
I am having problmes with my web based yahoo email..it has become
worthless as it gets filled hourly by these Swen messages and the
attachments.
I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT YAHOO DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS !!
Yet it has been happening since 9/18 nonstop..
and I've seen no message from yahoo.
I've sent them the problem..but they send me these cut and paste
response that do not address the problem of the email box getting
filled.
Does anyone have a phone number for yahoo?
I copied below my latest email to Yahoo on this issue. I think this
might be a feasible solution.
Bob Clark
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: to reply to me by email, send to the same userid as
above but append Hotmail.com instead of Yahoo.com. Email
to my Yahoo account frequently gets bounced because of the
Sven virus flood causing the account limits to be exceeded.
------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Robert Clark" <*********@yahoo.com>
Subject: Another solution to the Sven virus problem.
To: abuse@yahoo.com,
Yahoo seems to be unwilling or unable to implement my
proposal for stemming the tide of Sven email overflow
by scanning all attachments for viruses before
delivery to users mailboxes.
Here's another suggestion that is easier (and
cheaper) to implement:
Yahoo is able to correctly direct most of the Sven
infected email to the Bulk Mail folder. I also have
filters in place that direct some of them to the Trash
folder.
Therefore in order to prevent the influx of Sven
emails causing the storage limits to be exceeded,
allow users to set how large either of these folders
is allowed to get.
Then when either folder grows larger than the
allowed size, delete messages from them starting with
the older ones first. You might also allow users the
option of transferring the older messages from the
Bulk folder to the Trash folder rather than directly
deleting them.
Bob Clark
=========================================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Clark" |
|
| Title: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
21 Oct 2003 08:06:24 AM |
|
|
Apparently Yahoo has decided to change its policies on detecting
viruses. In addition to the anti-spam improvements, Yahoo now requires
all attachments to be scanned for viruses before downloading.
I can confirm this anti-virus requirement applies to the free
service.
Bob Clark
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: to reply to me by email, send to the same userid as
above but append Hotmail.com instead of Yahoo.com. Email
to my Yahoo account frequently gets bounced because of the
Swen virus flood causing the account limits to be exceeded.
------------------------------------------------------------
==========================================================================
Technology - Reuters
Yahoo Launches Anti-Spam E-Mail Decoys
Tue Oct 21,12:03 AM ET Add Technology - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Ben Berkowitz
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), the Internet
media and services company, on Tuesday launched a new set of premium
e-mail features that lets users create hundreds of decoy addresses to
thwart spam mail.
Yahoo, which has marketed itself as a successful spam fighter for
e-mail users, said most of the new functions are available only to
subscribers of its Mail Plus service, which costs $29.99 a year.
The battle against spam has drawn the attention of e-mail providers
and legislators, amid growing concern about the cost of junk e-mail to
companies and consumers.
Yahoo said it has seen a 40 percent jump in spam from January to
August and now averages 700,000 spam reports a day. Some analysts
estimate that spam totals one-third of all e-mail, costing
corporations billions of dollars a year.
Yahoo said its new AddressGuard feature would let users create a
fictitious "base name" and then 500 variations on that name that they
could give out when shopping, banking and joining communities online.
If an address started to receive spam, the user could simply shut down
the address and use another one.
SpamGuard Plus, which like AddressGuard is available only to premium
subscribers, lets customers set individual rules to define spam and
continue to use a blanket filter to block all spam.
Another new feature available to all users allows for a message
display limited to e-mails from known users. Some users will start to
have that function next week, Yahoo said, though it will not be fully
launched systemwide until November.
Yahoo has also changed rules on viruses, forcing users to scan all
attachments for viruses before downloading. Such scans had been
optional.
Brad Garlinghouse, vice president of communications products at Yahoo,
told Reuters the company had to keep enhancing its software because
the legal battle against spam could not do the job alone.
"Legislation and litigation, it's something of a whack-a-mole
problem," he said, a reference to a popular arcade game that
challenges players to try to hit an increasingly fast array of pop-up
figures, though he added Yahoo has supported spam laws and used
anti-spam suits in past.
Yahoo said its marketing research highlights the extent to which spam
is despised. In an August survey of Yahoo users, 77 percent said they
would rather clean a toilet than sort through the junk e-mail in their
inbox.
==========================================================================
rgregoryclark@yahoo.com (Robert Clark) wrote in message news:<832ea96d.0310130050.2834afb1@posting.google.com>...
I am not using Outlook. My isp is msn.com and I use msn 8.5.
I am having problmes with my web based yahoo email..it has become
worthless as it gets filled hourly by these Swen messages and the
attachments.
I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT YAHOO DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS !!
Yet it has been happening since 9/18 nonstop..
and I've seen no message from yahoo.
I've sent them the problem..but they send me these cut and paste
response that do not address the problem of the email box getting
filled.
Does anyone have a phone number for yahoo?
I copied below my latest email to Yahoo on this issue. I think this
might be a feasible solution.
Bob Clark
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: to reply to me by email, send to the same userid as
above but append Hotmail.com instead of Yahoo.com. Email
to my Yahoo account frequently gets bounced because of the
Sven virus flood causing the account limits to be exceeded.
------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Robert Clark" <*********@yahoo.com>
Subject: Another solution to the Sven virus problem.
To: abuse@yahoo.com,
Yahoo seems to be unwilling or unable to implement my
proposal for stemming the tide of Sven email overflow
by scanning all attachments for viruses before
delivery to users mailboxes.
Here's another suggestion that is easier (and
cheaper) to implement:
Yahoo is able to correctly direct most of the Sven
infected email to the Bulk Mail folder. I also have
filters in place that direct some of them to the Trash
folder.
Therefore in order to prevent the influx of Sven
emails causing the storage limits to be exceeded,
allow users to set how large either of these folders
is allowed to get.
Then when either folder grows larger than the
allowed size, delete messages from them starting with
the older ones first. You might also allow users the
option of transferring the older messages from the
Bulk folder to the Trash folder rather than directly
deleting them.
Bob Clark
=========================================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
22 Oct 2003 04:44:50 AM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2003 06:06:24 -0700, (Robert Clark)
wrote:
Apparently Yahoo has decided to change its policies on detecting
viruses. In addition to the anti-spam improvements, Yahoo now requires
all attachments to be scanned for viruses before downloading.
I can confirm this anti-virus requirement applies to the free
service.
Bob Clark
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: to reply to me by email, send to the same userid as
above but append Hotmail.com instead of Yahoo.com. Email
to my Yahoo account frequently gets bounced because of the
Swen virus flood causing the account limits to be exceeded.
------------------------------------------------------------
I paid Yahoo for their premium service. I have the same problem, just
at a higher threshold level.
Yahoo said its new AddressGuard feature would let users create a
fictitious "base name" and then 500 variations on that name that they
could give out when shopping, banking and joining communities online.
If an address started to receive spam, the user could simply shut down
the address and use another one.
Meanwhile, I believe that Swen mail directed to the fake address will
still go into the "Bulk Mail" folder and be counted against account
limits. I can mung my address when posting from Agent. I use an open
Yahoo address when posting from Google, since you have to use a valid
e-mail address. If it becomes a spam target and I do as Yahoo suggests
and shut it down, then I guess I have to abandon my Google account
too.
So I'm no longer posting my address in the clear, and I'm seeing
whether Yahoo's new "features" actually help.
SpamGuard Plus, which like AddressGuard is available only to premium
subscribers, lets customers set individual rules to define spam and
continue to use a blanket filter to block all spam.
Nope, not "block". That's the issue. "Reroute but continue to count
against quota". I'll look to see whether these new rules have allowed
me to actually block anything, but I doubt it.
Regular users of Yahoo have the option, as I do, of blocking entire
domains. Free users get 100 of these, and I used up all of them
blocking various domains I was seeing in the Swen stuff. That still
didn't stop it all, as many messages use no domain, a random-character
domain, or so many variations on xxxxx-msdn.com or xxxx-ms.net that
you can't get them all.
So thanks for trying Yahoo, but so far you haven't made a difference.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Hedrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
22 Oct 2003 08:34:10 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <rpoePA@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2vjcpv8goeup2fo9ss2ebcanhgt45tcdif@4ax.com...
Meanwhile, I believe that Swen mail directed to the fake address will
still go into the "Bulk Mail" folder and be counted against account
limits.
Yep. So far, since I started using Yahoo for a newsgroup address (which I
did because of all the spam I was getting at the previous address, and also
because I needed to kill that address to open the slot for a business
address), all but two messages I have received at this address were related
to viruses, 2/3 of which had attachments, and the other two were from Yahoo
trying to get me to upgrade, all within the first 6 days.
I intended this to be a spam attractor, and it greatly exceeded my
expectations. No penis enlargement offers yet, just patches for Microsoft
products.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
22 Oct 2003 09:59:26 AM |
|
|
Randy Poe <rpoePA@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2vjcpv8goeup2fo9ss2ebcanhgt45tcdif@4ax.com>...
On 21 Oct 2003 06:06:24 -0700, (Robert Clark)
wrote:
Regular users of Yahoo have the option, as I do, of blocking entire
domains. Free users get 100 of these, and I used up all of them
blocking various domains I was seeing in the Swen stuff. That still
didn't stop it all, as many messages use no domain, a random-character
domain, or so many variations on xxxxx-msdn.com or xxxx-ms.net that
you can't get them all.
My free account with yahoo is also getting suspended from receiving
e-mails several times a day because SWEN attachments are using up my
six megs.
I think the solution resides with the big boys. I'm hoping to get an
e-mail campaign or something going so yahoo (and hotmail, and ISPs,
etc.) will pay attention to, and fix, the problem. E-mail yahoo
(mail@yahoo-inc.com), post to other user groups, try to get a
groundswell of discontent going!
I can't imagine that it would be difficult for yahoo and the service
providers to prevent, with a high level of accuracy, the SWEN e-mails
from ever passing through their servers. Let's make them do it!!!
Thanks
Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
22 Oct 2003 03:21:28 PM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2003 06:06:24 -0700, (Robert Clark)
wrote:
Regular users of Yahoo have the option, as I do, of blocking entire
domains. Free users get 100 of these, and I used up all of them
blocking various domains I was seeing in the Swen stuff. That still
didn't stop it all, as many messages use no domain, a random-character
domain, or so many variations on xxxxx-msdn.com or xxxx-ms.net that
you can't get them all.
COMMENT:
But just the way you ended up describing the stuff you get (using
wildcard symbols) tells us that the ISP software makers are morons.
What happened to all the wildcard symbol file-moving power that used
to be in the old MS-DOS? I think GUIs and mice and underlined command
letters have killed them. But they would be really useful for blocking
spam, if implemented in Outlook Express or whatever. Not only could
you block whole domain names as you're doing, but with a proper
program you could block any email that came with any of those funny
characters (fractions and so forth) that come up when Chinese and
Korean spam shows up in English readers. For most of us who don't read
Asian languages anyway, that would kill a lot of Asian spam right
there.
And of course, you should get to make inclusive rules for certain
symbols and wildcards both, so you can kill all messages and end in
..tw or .cn no matter what else they contain, OR block messages that
have any of various non-english symbols in them, no matter what else
they contain.
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Hedrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
22 Oct 2003 03:55:29 PM |
|
|
"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:79cf0a8.0310221221.43058b70@posting.google.com...
What happened to all the wildcard symbol file-moving power that used
to be in the old MS-DOS?
They are still there, in a manner of speaking. Being able to highlight a
group of file icons and move them to another folder- thereby moving the
associated files- is much the same thing.
I still have an old program called Tempest from Abacus. It essentially
provides a terrific DOS shell. I still occasionally crank up the old DOS
machine (5 was the best), and sometimes use the command line, just to keep
from getting rusty.
GUI is far easier, and more than adequate for most tasks, but sometimes you
need to use the command line in order to get things done, in part because
Windows and OS X assumes the user is a moron and and they try too hard to
prevent us from making mistakes. I've had to use a boot disk once in a while
to perform certain disk tasks, and even that doesn't always work. After
converting to FAT32 I can't use my preferred DOS 5, though I recently saw a
file on ZD NET that will let DOS read FAT32 files.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
23 Oct 2003 04:54:24 AM |
|
|
In article <o9Clb.33109$W77.4264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
message news:79cf0a8.0310221221.43058b70@posting.google.com...
What happened to all the wildcard symbol file-moving power that used
to be in the old MS-DOS?
They are still there, in a manner of speaking. Being able to highlight a
group of file icons and move them to another folder- thereby moving the
associated files- is much the same thing.
This is not the same thing. Wildcarding used to require a single
character to be typed. Now you have to do a bunch of point clicks
and hope to hell your eyes are working well. Once upon a time,
we had the computer doing all that work for us.
For instance, if I wanted to get a listing all of the files whose
first character of the filename was A and the second character
of the extension was B in all directories that had a project
number of 10 and a third level subdirectory of BAR, all I'd have
to do is type:
DIR A*.?B?[10,*,*,*,BAR,*,*]
Now try to do an equivalent thing with your point-click in as
many keystrokes.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Hedrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
24 Oct 2003 08:40:17 AM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bn8c6f$c5r$6@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <o9Clb.33109$W77.4264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
message news:79cf0a8.0310221221.43058b70@posting.google.com...
What happened to all the wildcard symbol file-moving power that used
to be in the old MS-DOS?
They are still there, in a manner of speaking. Being able to highlight a
group of file icons and move them to another folder- thereby moving the
associated files- is much the same thing.
This is not the same thing.
For the original comment- moving a group of files, it is. For a great many
other useful functions, it doesn't come close.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
25 Oct 2003 09:09:46 AM |
|
|
In article <tZ9mb.43606$W77.13643@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bn8c6f$c5r$6@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <o9Clb.33109$W77.4264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in
message news:79cf0a8.0310221221.43058b70@posting.google.com...
What happened to all the wildcard symbol file-moving power that used
to be in the old MS-DOS?
They are still there, in a manner of speaking. Being able to highlight
a
group of file icons and move them to another folder- thereby moving the
associated files- is much the same thing.
This is not the same thing.
For the original comment- moving a group of files, it is.
Which original comment? I'm talking about wildcarding, so was
Steve. Highlighting one at a time is not wildcarding. Menus
limited to point-click access do not wildcard.
.. For a great many
other useful functions, it doesn't come close.
I'd hand you another box of Kleenix but the guys have me busy
stuffing C++ cups with it.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Hedrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
25 Oct 2003 03:14:02 PM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bne3tv$l8i$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <tZ9mb.43606$W77.13643@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bn8c6f$c5r$6@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <o9Clb.33109$W77.4264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in
message news:79cf0a8.0310221221.43058b70@posting.google.com...
What happened to all the wildcard symbol file-moving power that used
to be in the old MS-DOS?
They are still there, in a manner of speaking. Being able to highlight
a
group of file icons and move them to another folder- thereby moving
the
associated files- is much the same thing.
This is not the same thing.
For the original comment- moving a group of files, it is.
Which original comment? I'm talking about wildcarding, so was
Steve. Highlighting one at a time is not wildcarding.
No, but highlighting an entire group of files *as I said*, *is* wildcarding.
Click on the background, move the mouse until a group of files (which can
have entirely different filenames, including extensions) is highlighted,
click on any one of them, and move the bunch to where you want them. Just a
few clicks and it's done, with possibly fewer clicks than command line
keystrokes would take, and with a lot more ease.
Once again, your failure to do your homework is telling. You're not the
first person who seems to feel that it's better to create an imaginary
boogeyman, in your case some imaginary organisation called "Misfot", and to
cry victim than to take responsibility for your choices. Some people just
feel better being a victim.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
26 Oct 2003 06:46:54 AM |
|
|
In article <iPAmb.63012$5n.54057@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bne3tv$l8i$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <tZ9mb.43606$W77.13643@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bn8c6f$c5r$6@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <o9Clb.33109$W77.4264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in
message news:79cf0a8.0310221221.43058b70@posting.google.com...
What happened to all the wildcard symbol file-moving power that
used
to be in the old MS-DOS?
They are still there, in a manner of speaking. Being able to
highlight
a
group of file icons and move them to another folder- thereby moving
the
associated files- is much the same thing.
This is not the same thing.
For the original comment- moving a group of files, it is.
Which original comment? I'm talking about wildcarding, so was
Steve. Highlighting one at a time is not wildcarding.
No, but highlighting an entire group of files *as I said*, *is*
wildcarding.
No, it's not. Wildcarding involves setting up a field that
specifies position and constrain of characters to sift through.
Click on the background, move the mouse until a group of files (which can
have entirely different filenames, including extensions) is highlighted,
click on any one of them, and move the bunch to where you want them. Just
a
few clicks and it's done, with possibly fewer clicks than command line
keystrokes would take, and with a lot more ease.
Wildcarding (the computer biz' definition, not yours) also gives
one the power to rename those files. For instance,
(where direction is from right to left)
COPY *.MAA=*.MAC
will preserve a set of all my Macro sources. You should use
a real operating system for a while and see how useful it
can be.
Once again, your failure to do your homework is telling.
Your experience is transforming your alimentary canal into
a Klein bottle configuration.
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Hedrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
26 Oct 2003 10:34:06 AM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bngfue$i0n$3@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <iPAmb.63012$5n.54057@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, but highlighting an entire group of files *as I said*, *is*
wildcarding.
No, it's not. Wildcarding involves setting up a field that
specifies position and constrain of characters to sift through.
Sounds just like what I said. The real problem you're having is your failure
to do research. You said moving multiple files couldn't be done with
Windows, and I gave a clear example of doing it, *identical* in effect to
how DOS does it, using a GUI interface.
Wildcarding (the computer biz' definition, not yours)
"My" definition comes from actual use. Try it.
You should use
a real operating system for a while and see how useful it
can be.
You once again falsely assume that I haven't.
Your experience is transforming your alimentary canal into
a Klein bottle configuration.
You mean, my experience in readin your email. Stuffie, is that you?
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
27 Oct 2003 05:56:07 AM |
|
|
In article <PHSmb.13057$Lj6.4063@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bngfue$i0n$3@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <iPAmb.63012$5n.54057@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, but highlighting an entire group of files *as I said*, *is*
wildcarding.
No, it's not. Wildcarding involves setting up a field that
specifies position and constrain of characters to sift through.
Sounds just like what I said.
Nope.
.. The real problem you're having is your failure
to do research. You said moving multiple files couldn't be done with
Windows,
Find where I said that. I've been talking about exclusively about
wildcarding.
... and I gave a clear example of doing it, *identical* in effect to
how DOS does it, using a GUI interface.
Nope. The only equivalent, that is identical to yours, is
the *.* wildcarding which, although useful at times, doesn't
give you the option to exclude anything.
Wildcarding (the computer biz' definition, not yours)
"My" definition comes from actual use. Try it.
It's obvious that is where your definition comes from.
Just because you call a horse a goose will not change the genera
of either.
You should use
a real operating system for a while and see how useful it
can be.
You once again falsely assume that I haven't.
I know you haven't just from what you write.
Your experience is transforming your alimentary canal into
a Klein bottle configuration.
You mean, my experience in readin your email. Stuffie, is that you?
We have never had an e-mail conversation.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Hedrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
27 Oct 2003 06:22:35 AM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bnj1bh$ha7$2@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <PHSmb.13057$Lj6.4063@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bngfue$i0n$3@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <iPAmb.63012$5n.54057@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, but highlighting an entire group of files *as I said*, *is*
wildcarding.
No, it's not. Wildcarding involves setting up a field that
specifies position and constrain of characters to sift through.
Sounds just like what I said.
Nope.
Of course, further down you show that it is. Short term memory problems and
poor reading comprehension. Consider seeing a doctor.
.. The real problem you're having is your failure
to do research. You said moving multiple files couldn't be done with
Windows,
Find where I said that. I've been talking about exclusively about
wildcarding.
Yes, you have, and I gave an example of where you are *wrong*. Ignoring the
clearly demonstrated data contrary to your claim is a typical troll tactic.
... and I gave a clear example of doing it, *identical* in effect to
how DOS does it, using a GUI interface.
Nope. The only equivalent, that is identical to yours, is
the *.* wildcarding which, although useful at times, doesn't
give you the option to exclude anything.
First you say no, then you prove what I said. Are you really that clueless?
Wildcarding (the computer biz' definition, not yours)
"My" definition comes from actual use. Try it.
It's obvious that is where your definition comes from.
Yes, and you should try using a real operating system as I suggested, and
stop using "Misfot" niche products.
Just because you call a horse a goose will not change the genera
of either.
You're the one using the niche products.
You should use
a real operating system for a while and see how useful it
can be.
You once again falsely assume that I haven't.
I know you haven't just from what you write.
This is an admission that you haven't even been reading what I write before
replying. Typical troll tactic.
Your experience is transforming your alimentary canal into
a Klein bottle configuration.
You mean, my experience in readin your email. Stuffie, is that you?
We have never had an e-mail conversation.
We're having a conversation right here.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
27 Oct 2003 06:45:06 AM |
|
|
In article <L68nb.62860$W77.13918@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bnj1bh$ha7$2@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <PHSmb.13057$Lj6.4063@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bngfue$i0n$3@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <iPAmb.63012$5n.54057@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, but highlighting an entire group of files *as I said*, *is*
wildcarding.
No, it's not. Wildcarding involves setting up a field that
specifies position and constrain of characters to sift through.
Sounds just like what I said.
Nope.
Of course, further down you show that it is.
No I don't. I give you the equivalent of what you think
is wildcarding. *.* is translated into "all or nothing".
That's not very interesting if a user is seriously solving
file movement problems.
.. Short term memory problems and
poor reading comprehension.
And long term memory problems. But I haven't forgotten all of
it...yet.
..Consider seeing a doctor.
I already have been diagnosed.
.. The real problem you're having is your failure
to do research. You said moving multiple files couldn't be done with
Windows,
Find where I said that. I've been talking about exclusively about
wildcarding.
Yes, you have, and I gave an example of where you
are *wrong*. Ignoring the
clearly demonstrated data contrary to your claim
is a typical troll tactic.
Children who ignore advise of adults get their fingers burned.
... and I gave a clear example of doing it, *identical* in effect to
how DOS does it, using a GUI interface.
Nope. The only equivalent, that is identical to yours, is
the *.* wildcarding which, although useful at times, doesn't
give you the option to exclude anything.
First you say no, then you prove what I said. Are
you really that clueless?
No, but you appear determined not to learn anything.
Wildcarding (the computer biz' definition, not yours)
"My" definition comes from actual use. Try it.
It's obvious that is where your definition comes from.
Yes, and you should try using a real operating system as I suggested,
Oh, honey. You have no idea how big of ***** you just made of yourself.
.. and
stop using "Misfot" niche products.
Someday, I plan to. But not today.
Just because you call a horse a goose will not change the genera
of either.
You're the one using the niche products.
Now go find out which ones I wrote.
You should use
a real operating system for a while and see how useful it
can be.
You once again falsely assume that I haven't.
I know you haven't just from what you write.
This is an admission that you haven't even been
reading what I write before
replying. Typical troll tactic.
Ok. Tell me how a point-click can be used to concatenate all files
on system FOODLE whose third character is A and eighth
character is B, call the results MOBY.BIG and place it
in the unconnected directory [10,2162,FOO,BAR,BAZ,FAZ] on
the network device DSKB: located at node FART.
Time your attempt.
Your experience is transforming your alimentary canal into
a Klein bottle configuration.
You mean, my experience in readin your email. Stuffie, is that you?
We have never had an e-mail conversation.
We're having a conversation right here.
You think this medium is e-mail? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Now who
doesn't know what he's talking about?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Hedrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
27 Oct 2003 03:19:09 PM |
|
|
Of course, further down you show that it is.
No I don't. I give you the equivalent of what you think
is wildcarding. *.* is translated into "all or nothing".
That's not very interesting if a user is seriously solving
file movement problems.
It works *exactly* as I said in the specific situation I described. I have
made no claim to anything else.
.. Short term memory problems and
poor reading comprehension.
And long term memory problems. But I haven't forgotten all of
it...yet.
Sounds more like you never learned it in the first place, but have chosen
not to let ignorance stop you from posting.
..Consider seeing a doctor.
I already have been diagnosed.
Good for you! Now try therapy.
Children who ignore advise of adults get their fingers burned.
So, then, it seems you need to stock up on burn products.
First you say no, then you prove what I said. Are
you really that clueless?
No, but you appear determined not to learn anything.
You really should discontinue using your monitor as a mirror. I suppose you
need to hear a regular beat as a reminder to breathe.
Wildcarding (the computer biz' definition, not yours)
"My" definition comes from actual use. Try it.
It's obvious that is where your definition comes from.
Yes, and you should try using a real operating system as I suggested,
Oh, honey. You have no idea how big of ***** you just made of yourself.
Why, it's no comparison at all to you.
.. and
stop using "Misfot" niche products.
Someday, I plan to. But not today.
No, you'll just continue to ***** and moan about stuff that you voluntarily
choose to use, when there are better products available.
You're the one using the niche products.
Now go find out which ones I wrote.
After you read my books.
located at node FART.
Would that be the node where you brain has been as of late?
We have never had an e-mail conversation.
We're having a conversation right here.
You think this medium is e-mail?
Whether it's small, medium or large, *this* forum isn't email.
I'm going to have to start charging you for lessons soon.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
28 Oct 2003 05:13:33 AM |
|
|
In article <XZfnb.53959$h47.46319@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, further down you show that it is.
No I don't. I give you the equivalent of what you think
is wildcarding. *.* is translated into "all or nothing".
That's not very interesting if a user is seriously solving
file movement problems.
It works *exactly* as I said in the specific situation I described. I have
made no claim to anything else.
Ah. So you can't do the problem I stated with point-clicks. That's
the point I was trying to make.
.. Short term memory problems and
poor reading comprehension.
And long term memory problems. But I haven't forgotten all of
it...yet.
Sounds more like you never learned it in the first place, but have chosen
not to let ignorance stop you from posting.
All I have to do is set back; you keep digging a hole all by yourself.
<snip>
Wildcarding (the computer biz' definition, not yours)
"My" definition comes from actual use. Try it.
It's obvious that is where your definition comes from.
Yes, and you should try using a real operating system as I suggested,
Oh, honey. You have no idea how big of ***** you just made of yourself.
Why, it's no comparison at all to you.
Somedays I are one; other days, I'm not. When I am, I use it as
a learning opportunity.
.. and
stop using "Misfot" niche products.
Someday, I plan to. But not today.
No, you'll just continue to ***** and moan about stuff that you voluntarily
choose to use, when there are better products available.
I'm working on mess prevention. If I don't know how big the mess
is, how am I going to know what's needed to clean it up?
You're the one using the niche products.
Now go find out which ones I wrote.
After you read my books.
Which books are those?
located at node FART.
Would that be the node where you brain has been as of late?
We have never had an e-mail conversation.
We're having a conversation right here.
You think this medium is e-mail?
Whether it's small, medium or large, *this* forum isn't email.
I'm going to have to start charging you for lessons soon.
And we're breeding them. Needs a lot of work.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg D. Moore \Strider" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
25 Oct 2003 10:28:39 AM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bne3tv$l8i$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <tZ9mb.43606$W77.13643@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bn8c6f$c5r$6@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <o9Clb.33109$W77.4264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in
message news:79cf0a8.0310221221.43058b70@posting.google.com...
What happened to all the wildcard symbol file-moving power that used
to be in the old MS-DOS?
It's even more powerful under NT's CMD shell.
Whereas copy FOO*.* was equal to FOO*BAR.* i.e. DOS ignored anything after
the first * in either part of the name, NT's CMD shell will treat those as
different commands.
NT's CMD shell is far superior to the old DOS COMMAND.COM in almost all
ways.
They are still there, in a manner of speaking. Being able to highlight
a
group of file icons and move them to another folder- thereby moving
the
associated files- is much the same thing.
This is not the same thing.
For the original comment- moving a group of files, it is.
Which original comment? I'm talking about wildcarding, so was
Steve. Highlighting one at a time is not wildcarding. Menus
limited to point-click access do not wildcard.
.. For a great many
other useful functions, it doesn't come close.
I'd hand you another box of Kleenix but the guys have me busy
stuffing C++ cups with it.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
26 Oct 2003 07:48:49 AM |
|
|
In article <HEwmb.57079$Sc7.48565@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr@greenms.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:bne3tv$l8i$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <tZ9mb.43606$W77.13643@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bn8c6f$c5r$6@bob.news.rcn.net...
In article <o9Clb.33109$W77.4264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in
message news:79cf0a8.0310221221.43058b70@posting.google.com...
What happened to all the wildcard symbol file-moving power that
used
to be in the old MS-DOS?
It's even more powerful under NT's CMD shell.
Based on NT's roots, I would hope so. Fear not, that too will
probably pass.
Whereas copy FOO*.* was equal to FOO*BAR.* i.e. DOS ignored anything after
the first * in either part of the name, NT's CMD shell will treat those as
different commands.
Our OS didn't allow a * in the middle of a field. But we had a slightly
different definition of wildcard matching than -11 land.
As long as an OS stays consistent, providing a wildcarding scheme
for file manipulations is mandatory...at least, it used to be
a mandatory function.
NT's CMD shell is far superior to the old DOS COMMAND.COM in almost all
ways.
Your next assignment is to worry about bootstrapping ;-).
/BAH
<snip>
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
23 Oct 2003 06:01:19 AM |
|
|
In article <bn8c6f$c5r$6@bob.news.rcn.net>, says...
DIR A*.?B?[10,*,*,*,BAR,*,*]
Now try to do an equivalent thing with your point-click in as
many keystrokes.
Rock 'ard.
--
ICQ 40628243 Tel 07092057581 Fax 07092308800
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
23 Oct 2003 04:46:26 AM |
|
|
In article <79cf0a8.0310221221.43058b70@posting.google.com>,
(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:
On 21 Oct 2003 06:06:24 -0700, (Robert Clark)
wrote:
Regular users of Yahoo have the option, as I do, of blocking entire
domains. Free users get 100 of these, and I used up all of them
blocking various domains I was seeing in the Swen stuff. That still
didn't stop it all, as many messages use no domain, a random-character
domain, or so many variations on xxxxx-msdn.com or xxxx-ms.net that
you can't get them all.
COMMENT:
But just the way you ended up describing the stuff you get (using
wildcard symbols) tells us that the ISP software makers are morons.
What happened to all the wildcard symbol file-moving power that used
to be in the old MS-DOS?
The old MS-DOS had an inherent disease w.r.t. wildcarding properly;
it was a degenerative disease.
.. I think GUIs and mice and underlined command
letters have killed them. But they would be really useful for blocking
spam, if implemented in Outlook Express or whatever. Not only could
you block whole domain names as you're doing, but with a proper
program you could block any email that came with any of those funny
characters (fractions and so forth) that come up when Chinese and
Korean spam shows up in English readers. For most of us who don't read
Asian languages anyway, that would kill a lot of Asian spam right
there.
And of course, you should get to make inclusive rules for certain
symbols and wildcards both, so you can kill all messages and end in
..tw or .cn no matter what else they contain, OR block messages that
have any of various non-english symbols in them, no matter what else
they contain.
Another solution is change the spec to SIXBIT. ;-)
There were advantages to limiting the character set to SIXBIT.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Muldrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
23 Oct 2003 11:41:19 AM |
|
|
[groups trimmed to sci.physics]
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
The old MS-DOS had an inherent disease w.r.t. wildcarding properly;
it was a degenerative disease.
As far as I remember they just copied CP/M which itself copied the
wildcard scheme of RT11. What was the disease?
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch. |
24 Oct 2003 04:12:16 AM |
|
|
In article <3f980455.4490302@news.ucalgary.ca>,
(Ken Muldrew) wrote:
[groups trimmed to sci.physics]
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
The old MS-DOS had an inherent disease w.r.t. wildcarding properly;
it was a degenerative disease.
As far as I remember they just copied CP/M which itself copied the
wildcard scheme of RT11. What was the disease?
I can't do prefixing wildcarding; I can't do directory wildcarding;
While we're at it--I still get completely ***** because I
can't contatenate a file without using a pry bar. In addition,
those two people knew better.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
