It’s time to apply a little spring cleaning to the e-mail in-box.
A suggestion here that punitive measures might help deter the sloppy e-mail practices that spread most viruses drew mixed reaction.
“Tempting as it may sound, I don’t think the anti-virus thrust should be to punish our user community; we don’t punish people for being robbed or assaulted,” Vic Graham writes. “Sure, there are always a few users an administrator would like to ‘whack’ a bit, but the vast majority will do their best to avoid activating a virus in their LAN or WAN. What I think is important is to be patient and keep informing your users about how to react to e-mail that doesn’t look right or that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with their normal work.”
Others weren’t even tempted to knock heads.
“Your opinions on this are way out of line,” offers a reader who asked that his name be withheld. “I’ve got a better idea. Let’s punish the software vendor every time someone exploits a hole or bug in the code they rented to us. And the ‘how’ is easy; send them one less boxcar full of money.”
Another reader wants me to walk a mile in the user’s shoes.
“What if a virus is so clever that even Network World writers are fooled into infecting their own networks?” Charles Ashbacher asks. “In other words, what punishment would you be willing to self-inflict?”
There must be something in the First Amendment that will get me out of that one.
A column that dumped all over Plaxo and similar contact-update services was much less controversial: Virtually everyone who wrote hates these annoying requests, too.
“Thanks for the great article about Plaxo,” Steve Finney offers. “You convinced me that I made the right move by deleting Plaxo from my system about a month ago.”
My favorite recent e-mail artfully undercuts a spammer trick that attempts to skirt the new CAN-SPAM law by exploiting a provision that exempts e-mail whose primary purpose is not commercial. One example of this spam genre tells recipients: “The primary purpose of this e-mail is to deliver you a ‘Crazy USA State Law of the Week,'” and then contends that Massachusetts prohibits the use of tomatoes in clam chowder. I admitted not knowing whether the chowder business is true or not , an omission that did not sit well with one reader.
“I used the Mass. General Laws search engine to look for ‘clam,’ ‘chowder’ and ‘tomato’ or ‘tomatoes,'” writes Walt Crosby, executive vice president at Terabase in Danvers, Mass. “The word chowder is never referred to at all. Tomatoes are referred to in terms of measuring quantities at roadside stands. Clams are mentioned in terms of valid weights and measures, and in the definition of what a clam is for the purposes of wildlife protection. But there is no prohibition against tomatoes in clam chowder.”
“I guess the e-mail was really just spam after all,” Crosby concludes.
I guess a tiny bit of actual reporting might have led me to the same conclusion in time for that first column.
Another medical leave
Regular readers might recall that a heart attack just before Christmas kept me from filling this spot for a spell. In the course of treating me, doctors also discovered an unrelated problem that will require surgery April 7 and keep me away for another stretch. Between now and then I’m sneaking in a vacation. Colleagues Adam Gaffin and Melissa Shaw will take turns being your guide here from next week until I return.
Feel free to write in the meantime. The address is buzz@nww.com.
