Message-ID: <001801c19187$44193640$cf147ad5@computer>
From: "Martin M0MGM" <m0mgm@btopenworld.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <000d01c1909a$49ba6440$af60883e@g3aqc> <001201c1910b$77a5b1e0$59d97ad5@dave> <007701c1917d$126c1fe0$8f9a17d2@steve>
Subject: LF: Re: Virus Alert! HOAX HOAX
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:10:52 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Having suffered a major virus attack at work earlier this year I have no
hesitation in recommending Norton that checks emails both in and out.  The
hoax viruses are a big problem and as they don't need any attachments they
will slip through the net.  I have never understood why Microsoft doesn't
make it much more difficult for the unknowing to access the windows
directory or any of the hardware / networking controls.

Martin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Olney" <ollaneg@zeta.org.au>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 9:58 PM
Subject: LF: Virus Alert! HOAX HOAX


> G'day All,
>
> I have subscribed recently to an anti-virus program.    I won't tell you
> which one unless I receive direct inquiries as I don't want to put
> commercial recommendations up here.    It only costs US$20 p.a. (OK, so
that
> narrows it down a bit :-) for which I receive notifications and updates
> nearly everyday.    I usually update my virus data files every couple of
> days (done automatically with a few clicks in the background as I am
reading
> my emails).    When I received one of those SULFNBK.EXE hoax emails I
> already knew about it several days prior.    Forewarned is for-armed.
>
> Happy New Year !!!!!
>
> 73s Steve VK2ZTO
>
>
>