RE: [APML] Virus with APML subject recieved...

["Thom Iwancio" <tiwancio@sc.rr.com>]

Mine was let through by Road Runner but Norton caught it.  I don't
recall ever trading emails directly with Jeff so I would have to say
that it went to everyone, but then again my memory ain't what it used to
be <VBG>

Thom Iwancio
Elgin, Sc

www.machunter.org.
home.sc.rr.com/thomiwancio


-----Original Message-----
From: astro-photo-bounces@seds.org [mailto:astro-photo-bounces@seds.org]
On Behalf Of Jeff Crilly
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 7:04 PM
To: Discussion of FilmAstrophotography
Subject: Re: [APML] Virus with APML subject recieved...


> From: "Kevin Wigell" <kwemail@twcny.rr.com>
>
> So does this mean that a virus was blasted at every APML member? I
thought that wasn't supposed to be possible? I got it too, only
Roadrunner got to it first.
>
> Or was it sent directly to list members from someone's (Jeff Crilly?)
computer because those names were in his address book?
>

Good questions.

(The real Jeff Crilly speaking here.)

Fwiw, I scanned just now (with two different scanners) for this and dont
appear to have it.
I also took a look at the symptons, and afaict, I dont have them.

Also, I have network sharing turned off on this win2k box, and
have outlook attachments turned off (I cant get to them).  Win2k was
re-installed a couple months ago and at the time I locked down
the obvious security flaws.  I'm running mcaffee which seems ok.
So I feel that I'm reasonably safe.

Also, from the header, I'm sorta suspecting its making up the "from"
line.
Note that it has different from my address. (Or is roadrunner doing
that?)

The report is that the virus has its own smtp engine (and btw listens
on tcp/1080).

The message fragment with the virus below is indeed a message
I sent to the list back on 6/23/2003.  It seems to have made it
to the list with no attachment, etc, so I'm suspecting another list
member is actually infected, and the virus is attaching itself to
incoming mail and forwarding it.

....
Received: from mtiwmhc14.worldnet.att.net ([127.0.0.1])
          by mtiwmhc14.worldnet.att.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.12 201-253-122-126-112-20020820) with
ESMTP
          id
<20030701170755.JAGN25972.mtiwmhc14.worldnet.att.net@mtiwmhc14.worldnet.
att.net>
          for <astropix@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:07:55
+0000
Received: from mail.broadpark.no ([217.13.4.2])
          by mtiwmhc14.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc14) with ESMTP
          id <2003070117075411400q8g2fe>; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:07:54 +0000
Received: from byteheaven (68.80-202-100.nextgentel.com [80.202.100.68])
by mail.broadpark.no (Postfix) with SMTP
id 349EB786D8; Tue,  1 Jul 2003 19:07:47 +0200 (MEST)
From: "Jeff Crilly" <jlcphoto@wi.rr.com>
Subject:  Re: [APML] Question re efficient use of film vs Quality
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------8GFLAUZNDJBWDW"
Message-Id: <20030701170747.349EB786D8@mail.broadpark.no>
Date: Tue,  1 Jul 2003 19:07:47 +0200 (MEST)
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

------------8GFLAUZNDJBWDW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From: "Roland Roberts" <roland@astrofoto.org>
>
> Most of the time, I get a single weekend to shoot with no more
> opportunities for a month.  During those occasions, I shoot a few
> shots (as few as 1!) and still have it developed.  I basically
> develop my shots as soon as possible simply because I can hopefully
> learn something quicker.

Same here.  Fwiw, I just sho

------------8GFLAUZNDJBWDW--

--IkaDEHSFiJcBdPY9shnlxH80WhDyLaJBKaPuJAhYumvKF4fsQUsUXQkZxbVeQJGQ--

_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo


_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo