Subject: Re: Viruses

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:40:30 -0400

> From: John Starta <[email-masked]>

    > Every single message propagating the SirCam virus has a distinct
    > pattern upon which you can filter.

True, but the "be conservative in what you send" principle would indicate
that in *addition* to incoming filtering in the email client, a major
mailing list such as the IETF should *also* filter out known viruses.

For one, one such a large list there will inevitably be some people who
aren't set up to filter. So the "belt and suspenders" of doing it at both
ends is a Good Thing. For another, as someone else pointed out, it's
taking up a lot of bandwidth on the list.

	Noel

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 20:14:12 +0100 (BST)

> mailing list such as the IETF should *also* filter out known viruses.

Actually, no, because the IETF list must also be "liberal in what it
accepts", so that conservation of bogosity is preserved by mutual
cancellation of bogosity principles at this midpoint.

(This is fortunate, otherwise inherent conflict with the "end-to-end"
preservation bogosity principle would disrupt the time-space
continuum.)

> taking up a lot of bandwidth on the list.

Where are your ends?

L.

amazing how censorship becomes cool when it's a question of showing
off technical nous.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:53:59 -0700

Lloyd Wood wrote:
	[..]
> amazing how censorship becomes cool when it's a question of showing

no less amazing as how filtering becomes censorship when it's a
question of proving one's political correctness.

gja (in a constant state of amazement)