[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][Date Index][Subject Index]

Re: Happy.exe



Jim Eberle thoughtfully says that there's no need for me to reply on "the
happy.exe issue".  Well, since nobody is paying or being paid, there's no
need for anyone to reply about anything.

>I don't understand why you're so hostile on the happy.exe issue.

Sorry if I sounded hostile; I'm merely both incredulous and amused by the
alarm.  I can understand when people freak out on receiving malicious
software, but not when the alarm continues.

>All I want is
>some reassurance that the list server itself is clean.

Perhaps if you say what you mean by this more clearly, you'll get an
explanation--though I suspect that you're asking Nathan to make inquiries
at the U Penn computing center.  In the meantime:

If your question is "Has the list server itself been 'infected' by
Happy99?", no.  How do I know?  (i) Because I'm pretty sure the list server
is running on UNIX, not Windoze, and Happy99 is a Windoze program.  (ii)
The list server is not showing signs of being affected: it's not
accompanying each of our messages -- such as your own to which I reply, or
(I guess) this -- with Happy99.

If on the other hand it's "Does a copy of Happy99 still reside on the list
server?", I'd guess that the answer is yes, but (for the reason I gave
before) this doesn't matter.

>All of this may be old hat to you, but I don't recall the happy.exe issue
>arising during the three years that I have been a member of the list.

Well, to me this is merely the latest mutation of a general "e-mail virus"
scare: the idea that merely reading (or perhaps even *receiving*) a certain
message can wreak this or that kind of havoc.  I recommend a perusal of
http://kumite.com/myths/ -- it's both educational and amusing.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Peter Evans