First, on the racist issue: true, I did not realise it was the automation
mechanism that caused the "hey African" line.
>I only respond because I think it's important to see racism where it is --
>but not where it isn't. Otherwise, the world becomes an even more hostile
I admit it might have been a bit paranoid on my part to think about racism
first off rather than "doing some research", as someone suggested. I am
happy that all you reacted so positively about this, there's some hope in
On the attachment/size limit issue:
>I feel that barring attachments is giving in to the hackers.
I don't agree, I think this is kind of romantic. We all know we have the
technical means to defend spaces on the net, and if it's needed, why not do
it? Just think of all the time we'd have saved had this not happened, time
we could have used much better than this, as Clement (btw, congrats for the
way you dealt with this) suggested. I don't think it's giving in, I think
it's owning up to the reality of the net and to the responsibility the work
we are all doing on this and other lists implies. "Sustainable
communication" can also be obtained by barring attachments, and the people
who pay per byte might agree, I guess.
In addition to this, I agree with Joris Komin:
>We can also
>realistically expect the list to have a (relatively:-)) small percentage of
>naive subscribers:-), at any given time.
>handled the situation, by communicating with one another the issues with the
>situation, and thereby neutralized the virus quickly... Implement
>attachment size limits, but don't eliminate the ability to attach relevant
>info... And we should all use this as a reminder to be vigilant and
>prepared for malicious individuals...
True. Sorry if I was crude saying "the list fell into a trap". In fact it
reacted very healthily, as I said above. Again, thanks.
>As I recall, in the old days of netiquette, it was, and *should still be*,
>a cardinal sin to send anyone any kind of attachement without prior
>agreement on protocol and file format!
I understand this could be defined as romantic too, but I totally agree with
Joris Komin on this.
>With the advent of quasi-improved microsoft automation, and increasingly
>growing numbers of naive email users, this netiquette has increasingly
>become a thing of the past,
such rule could be enforced by technical means, because of the lack of these
underlying ethics mentioned by Joris (and only because of that). I guess
mine is a different interpretation of "not giving in"...
So what should we do, limit size or prevent attachments?
I am for preventing attachments, as I probably made clear. I can see the
fact that it can be useful to exchange them, but it could be done anyway:
announce the availability of the file on request, and everyone who is
interested will make contact in order to have it (or, better but not
accessible to everyone, put it somewhere on the net for dl), thus saving a
lot of bandwidth and time to the people who are not interested. Major
advantage: no virus crap on the list and on our hd.
I think it'd be more effective than size limiting, although intervening on
size could be proposed for other purposes than this virus thing, I guess.
Anyway, thanks for the response. Rest assured that I, like you, never open
unsolicited attachments, and I am happy that no one on the list got
infected. But we could have saved much of this time for something else,
the revolution will be remixed.
<table homepage - idm and multimedia>
<records for sale/trade etc.>