"Vince Sabio" <vince@vjs.org> wrote:
> It certainly is. However, I agree with the sentiment in your first
> post. IMO, the use of the word "evil" attempts to pass judgment
> and the purpose of a security alert is not to pass judgment, but to
> objectively summarize a vulnerability.
I agree. In fact, now that I think about it, it shouldn't have said
"spammers" at all. That was just an attempt to play into the general hatred
of spam. It probably should have said protect their lists against "email
address harvesting" or "email address harvesters". Semantics maybe, but a
security alert should be objective and factual.
> Of course, in this case, the "security alert" was B.S., anyway.
Right. I think I've been beating a dead horse and then handing off the
stick so I'll refrain from contributing to this thread after this email so
we can focus on other relevant topics...or wait patiently for another
"security alert". <g> And no, I'm not discouraging others from continuing
this thread; I'm just saying I'm sitting it out.
--
Steve Werby
President, Befriend Internet Services LLC
http://www.befriend.com/
References:
|
|
