One would hope a Cisco employee, or better yet, their employer would have
enough clue to have whacked this mole 24 hours after it appeared let alone a
week later. Guess not. Then perhaps guilty as charged?
Just my 2� worth.
-Al
Humble, unofficial, unresearched, off-the-cuff, personal capacity, etc.
Guilty for clue-impairment is a lot different than guilty of intent to
spread. As for clue-impairment, I think everyone here agrees that Cisco
should have this well filtered. If this was your intended statement, then
yes, agreed. It was the implication of malice that I think was
inappropriate, especially in a public forum.
We [hopefully] return to our regularly scheduled... Hmmm.....
Guilty for clue-impairment is a lot different than guilty of intent to
spread. As for clue-impairment, I think everyone here agrees that Cisco
should have this well filtered. If this was your intended statement, then
yes, agreed. It was the implication of malice that I think was
inappropriate, especially in a public forum.
Well hang on a bit there.... shouldn't merit have this filtered as well?
Agreed the person who opened the said SCR should have had a clue, but what
about merit protecting its subscribers? At very least one would think they
would be geared up to thwart the spread of such viruses.
X-Virus-Scanned: by MailScan