On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:32:43 -0500, Joe Wells wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:23:24 +0800, Old Nick wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:39:33 GMT, Tom Veatch
vaguely proposed a theory

There was an attachment, but it was simply a carrier for the
"BackDoor-AZV.gen" Trojan. Your anti-virus software probably deleted it.

Very strange. I have Free Agent, which shows attachments as a separate
entity, if they are there. The Virus checker cannot see it until I ask to
launch it (and did _not_ see it when I tried one once :-) The message as
I saw it had no sign of an attachment. Maybe my ISP is now removing them,
but not as far as I know.

Many news servers will strip all binaries posted to non-binary newsgroups.
That's why we post pictures to a.b.p.w instead of here. I'm surprised that
you saw the attachment at all, Tom.

Hey, Joe.

Must be an individual ISP thing. I'm using Earthlink's news service and Agent 2.0 as a reader. I can't say with certainty that all
attachments come through, but apparently at least some do.

Well, now that I say that, I'm going to have to also say I'm not sure about this one. Agent shows messages containing an attachment
with a different colored symbol (yellow instead of white with my options settings). Since that message content is long gone, I can't
say for sure what color the symbol was. I can say for sure that when I tried to open it (message? or attachment?) McAfee told me it
was infected and deleted it.

I just looked over my list of message headers and found one, " At dinner last night....", Kevin Singleton, 6/15/2004 4:51 AM,
that indicates it has an attachment. Opening the message index shows one .jpg and four .gif attachments. I didn't open them all, but
the one I did open looks like it might be an icon for a speaker or some such. My guess is that they are the result of his posting in
html or something.

There were a couple of others with extraordinarily large line counts, i.e. 1000, that I suspect would have binary attachments if
downloaded. But when I tried, they were no longer available. The dates were old enough that they were probably beyond the retention
period.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA