Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
> Yes, when the intent is to damage a computer system--and it is difficult to
> imagine any other intent behind coding a line that exactly resembles UUENCODE
> encoding of a file with a name that matches the name of a virus and will be
> executed (insofar as possible) by the receiving computer when invoked.
1.) UUENCODE encoding needs 2 parts: 'begin' and 'end'
2.) UUENCODE needs to be defined in header of message
3.) UUENCODE encoding requires UUENCODE data itself. Have you seen any?
4.) "romeo_juliet.exe.vbs" doesn't match name of any virus. Is similar to some, yes.
5.) No attachment with .vbs extension is executed automatically when you
view the message. Yes, it will when you run that file, providing that
you have a 'Microsoft scripting engine' attached. And this engine needs
to be downloaded from Microsoft site separately.
6.) "Intent of damage" has to be proven
7.) It is hard to call typing a plain text into message "coding a line"
Your miserable knowledge of subject makes me more and more amused.
> > Please, do not write anything on subject you don't
> > know nothing about.
>
> I'll keep that in mind, but that is not a problem at the moment.
Not mine, definitely :)
> See 18 USC 1030 (a)(5)(A-C)
" (5) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program,
information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct,
intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected
computer;
(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without
authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes
damage; or
(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without
authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; "
1.) There is no program nor code
2.) There is no damage with or without authorization
3.) There is no access to anyone other's computer
4.) There is no "knowingly", as I explained before
> 18 USC 1030 (b)
"(b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of
this section"
I already falsified your a)
> and the definitions in 18 USC 1030 (e)(2)(B) and (e)(8)(A).
I already falsified your a)
> > EVERY mail client HAVE TO work along those rules.
>
> There is no requirement that mail clients interpet and accept MIME headers, and
> some clients may recognize and act upon UUENCODE headers independently of MIME
> specifications, for reasons of compatibility.
Yes, but mail client which doesn't work along those rules can incorrectly interpret (like we see in this case) RFC-1521 compliant
message. And, because of it, there is no law rules you can use in such a situation against someone who sent you a message. Let us
forget for awhile that I sent it unintentionally. Even if I would do it intentionally, string:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
means that this is a plain text message. And it should display my message like this:
- ----------------------
(remainder of message removed by B. Reid. Once is enough).