I checked with a nerdy geek and was told that it is a waste of bandwidth to broadcast attachments to an entire mailing list. Although not every attachment is a virus, NO ASCII text is. Dr. Knodt's suggestion is entirely consistent with email etiquette.
----- Forwarded message from Thomas Gatliffe -----
Dr. Knodt, Perhaps you should make an appointment with some nerdy geek in the IR department who can explain to you how viruses get promulgated. It is usually through executables (.exe) files or microsoft macros. Otherwise you will continue to be needlessly worried about non-existent threats. :-) Tom G.
> ================================================================= > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > =================================================================
================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
----- End of forwarded message from Thomas Gatliffe -----
--
_ | | Robert W. Hayden | | Work: Department of Mathematics / | Plymouth State College MSC#29 | | Plymouth, New Hampshire 03264 USA | * | fax (603) 535-2943 / | Home: 82 River Street (use this in the summer) | ) Ashland, NH 03217 L_____/ (603) 968-9914 (use this year-round) Map of New hay...@oz.plymouth.edu (works year-round) Hampshire http://mathpc04.plymouth.edu (works year-round)
The State of New Hampshire takes no responsibility for what this map looks like if you are not using a fixed-width font such as Courier.
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." --Thomas Edison
================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
> I checked with a nerdy geek and was told that it is a waste of > bandwidth to broadcast attachments to an entire mailing list.
This to some extend depends on the size of the attachment; but the principle is sound UNLESS the list is a specialized one of a nature that makes the use of attachments customary.
> Although not every attachment is a virus, NO ASCII text is.
I believe this is more or less true at the moment. However, there was some speculation in the days of DOS that the "ANSI escape sequences" that were used to do things like change color of text on screen could be used to create a Trojan horse - although the writer would need an IQ of 2n to write one that would fool a user with IQ n.
Here's the gimmick. The ANSI escape sequences did not just change text and background color - they also moved the cursor. Once the programmers were thinking about the keyboard, somebody had the idea of including a (rarely-used) ANSI escape sequence to allow the keys to be remapped (to facilitate international ckeyboard layouts, I supppose.) To make things like dead accent keys work here, they allowed a key to be remapped to more than one character. Being true programmers of the old school, they did not limit this to the two or three characters that anybody actually needed.
RESULT: You could in principle insert (undisplayed) ANSI escape sequences into an arbitrary text string that would map the ENTER key to "FORMAT C:", set several other keys to "Y", and make the display black-on-black from the cursor point onwards. Somebody impetuous enough to react to an apparently stuck display by hammering keys at random might actually not only initiate the command to erase their hard drive but also "verify that this was what they wanted". This sort of thing was actually tested, according to a 1990-vintage virus protection book I used to have. The solution was a modified ANSI.SYS file that did not support key remapping, or limited the length of the remapped string. I used to have one of these on my machine.
It has been conjectured that a truly brilliant writer of short assembler code might have been able to load and run a .com executable in this fashion, from a text string. Remember, a program is just a string of characters - especially a .com which has very little "rubric" at the head. In principle you can create a program with a word processor if it does not use one of a few truly unprintable characters. However, AFAIK this was never successfully done.
The moral is that anything can be a virus if there is something to run it. Code doesn't just run itself. Of course, this is true of executables as well - an executable only runs when the OS puts it into the CPU. -Robert Dawson
================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
this has PARTLY to do with virus spreading potential but ... partly to courtesy ... and partly due to the fact that when downloading your messages say at home ... on a modem ... you can't get to the NEXT message without taking time to have the attachment downloaded too ... whether you opt to look at it or not
================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
More accurately - do not send any attachments to any list that does not have a specific policy or tradition permitting this.
But, by the same token, a 10K attachment is no more pernicious than the same 10K included as text, and less so than a 1K HTML file that immediately downloads 50K of images from another site without checking for permission.
-Robert Dawson
================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
dennis roberts wrote: > the pragmatic of the situation is:
> DO NOT SEND ANY ATTACHMENTS TO ANY LIST
> this has PARTLY to do with virus spreading potential but ... partly to > courtesy ... and partly due to the fact that when downloading your messages > say at home ... on a modem ... you can't get to the NEXT message without > taking time to have the attachment downloaded too ... whether you opt to > look at it or not
While I agree with the sentiments expressed by others that attachments should not be sent to email lists, I take exception that this should apply to small (only a few KB or so) gif or jpeg images. Pictures *are* often worth a thousand words, and certainly it makes sense that the subscribers to a stat list would occasionally want to post a graph or figure so as to illustrate a particular statistical point. (David Howell posted a graph of a sampling distribution.) It is more than a little ironic that this would be against the rules for this list!
Drake Bradley Bates College
================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
>While I agree with the sentiments expressed by others that attachments should >not be sent to email lists, I take exception that this should apply to small >(only a few KB or so) gif or jpeg images. Pictures *are* often worth a >thousand words, and certainly it makes sense that the subscribers to a stat >list would occasionally want to post a graph or figure so as to illustrate a >particular statistical point. (David Howell posted a graph of a sampling >distribution.) It is more than a little ironic that this would be against the >rules for this list!
though more of a pain ... what i tend to do is to make graphs and post to my webspace ... then tell folks of the url ... then it is their choice to go and see
in eudora, we can insert an image to the text space ... and this can be neat ... but, some may be able to see it in the text ... or, get it as an attachment ... but, i have had some feedback that doing this CAN goof things up too ... at their end (the technicalities of why i don't know)
i can certainly just attach stuff and send ...
it is all i can do on some occasions ... NOT to add to the message or as an attachment ... someTHING ... perhaps a pic ...
but, i just resist sending any attachments to any list ... for a variety of reasons ...
i use http://www.copernic.com ... a nice desktop search tool ... and one nice thing about it is you can save your search results as a browser webfile ... and then send AS AN ATTACHMENT to a person, list, etc. ... and when they open the attachment ... it IS already in an opened ie or netscape ... so you get the benefits of the short url descriptions and workable links ... BUT, even there, i hesitate to send this attachment to a list (who knows what evil might parasite itself along with it?)
i know that sometimes ... one might have something to share ... and it would be MUCH easier to share it once ... rather than say ... "i have a pic i can send to anyone who wants it ... send me a note" ... and this makes FAR more work for the sender (so, they opt for NOT doing anything with it) AND, invariably, one then gets posts to the entire list rather than to the specific person who has the 'thing' to share
sure is a tangled web we live in
================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
dennis roberts wrote: > though more of a pain ... what i tend to do is to make graphs and post to > my webspace ... then tell folks of the url ... then it is their choice to > go and see
This is the best way IMO. The alternative is to offer to send the attachment by private email.
"Drake R. Bradley" wrote: > While I agree with the sentiments expressed by others that attachments should > not be sent to email lists, I take exception that this should apply to small > (only a few KB or so) gif or jpeg images. Pictures *are* often worth a > thousand words, and certainly it makes sense that the subscribers to a stat
It's worth noting that some lists have gateways to Usenet groups. Usenet does not support attachments, so they will be lost to Usenet readers. Also, even in the anything-goes early 21-st Century climate of the Internet, one big no-no remains the posting of binaries to non-binary groups.
<gdal...@hnrc.tufts.edu> wrote: > "Drake R. Bradley" wrote:
> > While I agree with the sentiments expressed by others that attachments should > > not be sent to email lists, I take exception that this should apply to small > > (only a few KB or so) gif or jpeg images. Pictures *are* often worth a > > thousand words, and certainly it makes sense that the subscribers to a stat
> It's worth noting that some lists have gateways to Usenet groups. > Usenet does not support attachments, so they will be lost to Usenet > readers. [ break ]
- my Usenet connection seems to give me all the attachments. But if I depended on a modem and a 7-bit protocol, I would be pleased if my ISP filtered out the occasional, 100 kilobyte 8-bit attachment. (Some folk still use 7-bit protocols, don't they?)
> Also, even in the anything-goes early 21-st Century climate > of the Internet, one big no-no remains the posting of binaries to > non-binary groups.
Right; that's partly because of size. My vendor has the practice, these days, of saving ordinary groups for a week, binary groups (which are the BULK of their internet feed) for 24 hours. Binary strings may be treated as screen-commands, if your Reader doesn't know to package them as an 'attachment' or otherwise ignore them.
Some attachments are binary, some are not. Standard HTML files are ASCII, with the added 'risk' (I sometimes look at it that way) of invoking an immediate internet connection.
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:34:03 GMT, Jerry Dallal > <gdal...@hnrc.tufts.edu> wrote: > > It's worth noting that some lists have gateways to Usenet groups. > > Usenet does not support attachments, so they will be lost to Usenet > > readers. [ break ]
> - my Usenet connection seems to give me all the attachments. > But if I depended on a modem and a 7-bit protocol, I would be > pleased if my ISP filtered out the occasional, 100 kilobyte 8-bit > attachment. (Some folk still use 7-bit protocols, don't they?)
I sit corrected. Better had I said that because of its history, many Usenet readers access newsgroups in a way that attachments are lost on them.
>> Also, even in the anything-goes early 21-st Century climate >> of the Internet, one big no-no remains the posting of binaries to >> non-binary groups. >Right; that's partly because of size. My vendor has the practice, >these days, of saving ordinary groups for a week, binary groups >(which are the BULK of their internet feed) for 24 hours. Binary >strings may be treated as screen-commands, if your Reader doesn't >know to package them as an 'attachment' or otherwise ignore them.
No better way to get an ISP to change a group's status than by routinely sending binaries through.