I think that if a user opens an attachment from a random source, that came with no explanation, with a funky name like the ones in the write-up (see article link), then that's their own fault.
Filtering out legitimate attachments is not very good policy to protect against virii. You'd be -much- better off spending a few minutes educating employees in a "Virus Prevention" seminar or something. Show them that opening emails like that is not intelligent, and that way, it's not as much of a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if anyone else has said this (people were bitching about the EU at post 100, so...), but the site's been pulled.
I think that if a user opens an attachment from a random source, that came with no explanation, with a funky name like the ones in the write-up (see article link), then that's their own fault.
Filtering out legitimate attachments is not very good policy to protect against virii. You'd be -much- better off spending a few minutes educating employees in a "Virus Prevention" seminar or something. Show them that opening emails like that is not intelligent, and that way, it's not as much of a problem.
Huh. Seems in Software Update, it's titled 2003-3-24, but in the description, it's *2002*-3-24.
Weren't they a year off last time, too?