Date: Mon Jun 12 1995 - 12:43:34 EDT
> it is problematic to forward these kinds of warnings without checking them
> out. People enjoy starting completely false rumours, and then count on
> people like rmasters to forward them indiscriminately, causing thoudsands
> of messages to invade the net.
Hence the disclaimers. If it worries you, check it out. If it doesn't bother
you, don't. It doesn't bother me, so I haven't.
But as I said before, I believe it to be better to be cautious about a safe
product than blasi about an unsafe one.
In the case of Windows '95, an article was printed in Information Week magazine
which lent it some credibility. It was also discussed at great length on
uk.legal - which I guess most of you don't read (not being in the UK).
In the case of PKUNZIP (or not) anyone who's interested can just get another
version and no-one will lose any money or any data either. This information
was supplied to me (and many others) by the managing director of a commercial
computing company - so he'd better know what he's talking about as his
reputation, and that of his company, is rather on the line.
I wouldn't say I forward things "indiscriminately" though. You've yet to see
me post anything about "MAKE MONEY FAST", "Good Times viruses" or Cookie
Anyway, I understand, and do in fact agree with, the rest of Robert's comments
and it's nice to see constructive criticism as opposed to personal insults
and abuse (Duane take note).
End of subject? If you all really object to me posting such warnings, let me
know. Just don't go e-mailing me when your system dies... (irony intended).
Robb Masters | Systems & Software Engineer
BT D&P SSI BSEC CEC | CEC home page (BT only) - http://www.lssec.bt.co.uk:8080/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:52:38 EST