On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 01:51:04PM -0700, Bob Bish wrote:
> Why are the same kind of efforts NOT being made regarding viruses?
They are. The best way to eliminate them, however, is to not run operating
systems and applications which are readily susceptible to being infected by
them and/or propagating them, and many (MANY) users are unwilling to do this.
Hence the problem of viruses and the need for many anti-virus products,
constant updating of rulesets for them, and so on.
[ In fact, there have been several discussions on Spam-L about whether or
not viruses ARE spam: they do fit the definition ("unsolicited bulk email"),
and they do cause many of the same problems. Consensus seems to be emerging --
though I don't purport to speak for anyone other than myself -- that yes, this
does make sense, and so it may be appropriate to consider strategies for both
problems together, even though the tactics used may be different. ]
As to the rest of your article, which I'm going to glibly boil down to
"What's all the fuss over spam?" I would suggest that you read any/all of:
http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined
http://www.cauce.org/about/problem.shtml
http://mail-abuse.org/manage.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2635.html
http://www.cauce.org
http://www.spamhaus.org
http://www.honet.com/Nadine
http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l
http://cluelessmailers.org
http://www.Suespammers.org
http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/index/spam.html
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam
http://www.spamfaq.net
http://www.spamlaws.com
http://www.duh.org/spamblock
http://www.spews.org
http://junkfilter.zer0.org
where you will find varied explanations, case histories, etc. You can do
this while I'm reading all those URLs that Chuq sent along. ;-)
---Rsk
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
