with <zq6dnTOAy4vCQAz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@earthlink.com> 166p1 wrote:

*SKIP*
> When you look at the address it LOOKS like it comes from the USA.
> However when you look at the full mail headers you can see every
> server it passed through on the way. Only one, goddamned DigitalOcean,
> has a US presence ... all the rest went back to RIPE (europe) which is
> a convenient channel for Russians.

RIPE has nothing to do with it (IOW -- coincidence). You must have
missed it, last week FBI was just as good as any other ;)

What bothers me (not really, but curious nevertheless) is why Google is
A-OK with passing around spam (I'm not sure if no-attachment and/or
text/plain requests for callbacks constitute fishing). I mean, I see
how it works and still Google doesn't care.

*SKIP*
> Another one that's come up a few times has a link supposedly to
> DocuSign or one of those similar sites. However it wasn't a site - it
> was a link to a Excel spreadsheet with a big PICTURE that looked like
> a DocuSign web page.

Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with
Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to
upload twice.

*CUT*

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:02:26 -0500, Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> wrote:
> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with

Excel spreadsheet, binary version.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>
> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with
> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to
> upload twice.

Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to
contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put
it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a
database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me
the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then.

Thanks.
--
Andreas

On 11/15/21 12:08 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 11/14/21 20:09, 166p1 wrote:
>> Several times lately I've been handed a "suspicious"
>> mail - SAYS there's been like a $30,000 transaction
>> to the company - but it's a tad vague on what the
>> transaction was about, to who, from who. It urges
>> you to click a link for "details". Oh, they sent it
>> to five or six people, not just the accountant.
>
>     Phishing for the information WE must not give
> them or to get US to pull down a document that will
> load malware.
>     I get pseudo-notices from my email provider
> or from my ISP that are nothing but phishing attempts.
> i already mentioned the calls for other stuff I do
> not use.

The PROBLEM is not the Informed ... it' that Average
User who is both credulous and clicks on those links
without a second thought. Any one of them can bring
down a whole org.

Remember the old old days ... "If it's on TV then
it HAS to be true !" ? Well, the same mentality
still applies to e-mails.

>>
>> When you look at the address it LOOKS like it comes
>> from the USA. However when you look at the full mail
>> headers you can see every server it passed through
>> on the way. Only one, goddamned DigitalOcean, has
>> a US presence ... all the rest went back to RIPE
>> (europe) which is a convenient channel for Russians.
>> DO apparently gives them a way to create a little
>> pivot point so the mail will seem to be from a US
>> source. The link was to a dot address, that isn't
>> registered to anybody according to ARIN or its
>> euro counterparts.
>>
>> Another one that's come up a few times has a link
>> supposedly to DocuSign or one of those similar
>> sites. However it wasn't a site - it was a link
>> to a Excel spreadsheet with a big PICTURE that
>> looked like a DocuSign web page.
>>
>> Running it in LibreOffice, in a BSD virtual machine,
>> the message comes up that there are a bunch of macros
>> that probably won't run correctly. Looking at THEM
>> you see code that looks likely to download a software
>> package. So - very high prob - malware or ransomware.
>>
>> They're SNEAKY these days !
>
>     They (the con men) have been sneaky for a long
> long time.

They understand human weaknesses, very much so.

>>
>> Alas, unprepared, MOST people will just click on
>> the links - and will be running Winders and Office.
>> So, they get WHACKED and wonder why it happened.
>>
>> Either/or on your Winders and Linux, DO install
>> VirtualBox and install a good Linux or BSD to it.
>> Iffy e-mails - open them in THERE, well-isolated
>> from your real system and a non-Winders environment.
>> It's quick, and it's about the only safe way to
>> do things these days.
>
>     A good thought. But the people who fall prey to
> the swindles and malware reject the idea of trying to go
> beyond webmail and browsing,  Too scary to think they
> might be able to learn to do NEW things.

The people I take care of ... I drill into them the
signs of an iffy mail - and tell them to forward it
to me. Then I will do the tests and get back to them.
It's more work for me - short term - but a LOT less
messy than restoring everything after a ransomware
attack. Did THAT already.

A useful psych technique is to set their boxes to ASK
what to do with Word or Excel links/attachments instead
of just automatically running them. This gives pause,
a chance to THINK about it. Every evil mail I send a
paragraph about WHAT was wrong about it - nothing
preachy, just a brief explaination. This educates
without SEEMING like education.

Alas, I'm about at the retirement point. Don't know
who will do the education, do the tests, after I'm
out of the picture. Nobody likely ....

>> And as for Apple - snob-elite closed-box crap IMHO.
>> I do have an Apple-II ... but haven't run it in
>> like 25 years. Probably still works though.
>
>     Well a person who buys an Mac or an Ipad/phone
> etc, can probably afford it and the difficulties s/he
> might have with it.  i never could afford an Apple which
> is why I started with a Commodore 64 on sale for a
> manageable $199.99 in the 1980s.

My first stuff was piles of punch-cards to be
submitted to the priests at the Computer Center.
Helped to offer some minor bribe if you wanted
them to be run today, rather than next week :-)

My first "affordable" PC was a VIC-20. I kinda liked
those - still have an emulator for entertainment
purposes. C-64 was like my 3rd PC ... had a TI-99
in-between. Also "closed box" philosophy - which
worked for Apple but doomed TI. Interesting CPU
however ... a multi-user/tasking setup supported
by actual dedicated CPU instructions ....

The IBMs came later. I especially remember the first
hard disk I installed - a whopping 10-MB Rodime, and
you had to buy a card to run it. Made the boot take
about five minutes. My old boss spent all weekend
trying to make it work ... the problem was that he'd
only wait about two minutes and assume there was some
horrible problem. Came in monday and waited 5 minutes ...

Lotus-123 and WordStar were SO much faster !

20-MB ... they came with a printed list of bad sectors.
The company didn't FIX those however, just FOUND them.
You had to use DEBUG directed to a port on the drives
and manually enter the bad sectors ......

>     Hey that Apple II if running might be worth a
> bit to collectors.  Turn it into cash.  Save storage
> space.

Every year I wait, the more it's worth :-)

I DO power it about once a year - to keep the old
capacitors happy. Those are the death of old hardware.

MAY still have that Rodime disk somewhere ... "Double
Height" and weighed about five pounds. Alas, need an
"MFM" card to work it and those don't grow on trees
anymore ... ain't been around since the early days of
the ISA buss.

On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>>
>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with
>> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to
>> upload twice.
>
> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to
> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put
> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a
> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me
> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then.

Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how
to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be.

This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks
and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just
automatically clicking those links ........

I'd far rather check 100 iffy e-mails than have to restore
dozens of PCs after a ransomware attack. Been there ....

166p1 <z24ba6.net>:
166p1> The PROBLEM is not the Informed ... it' that Average User who
166p1> is both credulous and clicks on those links without a second
166p1> thought. Any one of them can bring down a whole org.

Only if the org has incompetent admins (or no admins at all)
and uses insecure-by-design windows PCs that are not properly
locked.

On 2021-11-17, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote:

> On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>>
>>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with
>>> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to
>>> upload twice.
>>
>> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to
>> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put
>> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a
>> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me
>> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then.
>
> Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how
> to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be.
>
> This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks
> and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just
> automatically clicking those links ........
>
> I'd far rather check 100 iffy e-mails than have to restore
> dozens of PCs after a ransomware attack. Been there ....

Yup. It's amazing how much a little bit of common sense can
avoid these mishaps.

If I see a message claiming to be from a long-lost friend,
or one that promises the world if I just click on this button
here, the first thing I do is to check the from address.
A lot of scammers don't even try to disguise it, and seeing
a suffix like .ru or .tw is a dead giveaway. Also, I'll hover
my mouse over the magic button and see what URL comes up on
the status line; again, anything funny here signals danger.

Plus there's the message text itself. If the message were
really from a friend, you'd recognize the style. But even
with strangers, the kinds of broken English in many scam
messages should set off alarm bells.

Worst case, I'll use Thunderbird's "view source" option
to look at the actual contents of the message. There
can be lots of interesting goodies on display there.

If someone claims to be using your webcam to spy on you,
are his threats really credible if your machine doesn't
even have a webcam to begin with?

The trouble with all these techniques is that they require
time and care to use. In a world where convenience trumps
everything, most people would rather risk being compromised
than take the few seconds it needs to check things out.

Too bad "common sense" is such a misnomer...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 01:29:22 -0500, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
> On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>>>
>>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with
>>> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to
>>> upload twice.
>> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to
>> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put
>> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a
>> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me
>> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then.
>
> Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how
> to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be.

There is a group for mail spam <news:news.admin.net-abuse.email>. Please
consider to set a follow-up there if you want to continue to discuss
email scam.

But consider the target audience of this scam does not read (or know
about) in the usenet. It doesn't make sense to post rules "how to not get
scammed" there.

It's better put on a web page that people would find it there. But the
target audience doesn't look up information (like a (even if fake) email
address) coming with this scam.

> This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks
> and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just
> automatically clicking those links ........

I don't think that is possible, or ever will. It might work to an ad on
TV or Facebook to make people understand. But who's paying for the ad?
--
Andreas

On 11/17/21 10:20, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 01:29:22 -0500, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with
>>>> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to
>>>> upload twice.
>>> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to
>>> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put
>>> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a
>>> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me
>>> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then.
>>
>> Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how
>> to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be.
>
> There is a group for mail spam <news:news.admin.net-abuse.email>. Please
> consider to set a follow-up there if you want to continue to discuss
> email scam.
>
> But consider the target audience of this scam does not read (or know
> about) in the usenet. It doesn't make sense to post rules "how to not get
> scammed" there.
>
> It's better put on a web page that people would find it there. But the
> target audience doesn't look up information (like a (even if fake) email
> address) coming with this scam.
>
>> This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks
>> and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just
>> automatically clicking those links ........

Of Late my foot! It has been a plague since BBS days.
Because my phone has been advertised as a contact for several
organization over the years the trash calls have always been bad for
the last 40 years.

>
> I don't think that is possible, or ever will. It might work to an ad on
> TV or Facebook to make people understand. But who's paying for the ad?
>

The Better Business Bureau should do that maybe with assistance from a
government agency.

It is very hard to get people to pay attention to simple
matters but if it looks too good to be true it may be a lie.

bliss81 - brought to you by the power and ease of PCLinuxOS
and a minor case of hypergraphia

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 17/11/2021 17:28, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> Worst case, I'll use Thunderbird's "view source" option
> to look at the actual contents of the message. There
> can be lots of interesting goodies on display there.

hilariously, I got an email from a webserver advertising web design,
hosted by a vpn supplier in the ISA.

I forwarded it to abuse@vpnsupplier.com with a note saying it was
against their stated usage policy.

It was rejected as containing harmful material :-)

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

with <875ysrpzmi.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:

>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check
>> with Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was
>> first to upload twice.
>
> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to
> contact the scammer.

I know what you're talking about, but in this case it was
TrojanDownloader:O97M/EncDoc.PMSJ!MTB (whatever that means in
Defender-speak, if it was defender).

> Am interested. If you still have it, could you put it into an
> encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a database
> of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me the
> password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then.

For multiple reasons, I'm not doing it.

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:02:29 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>
> with <875ysrpzmi.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> Am interested. If you still have it, could you put it into an
>> encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a database
>> of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me the
>> password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then.
>
> For multiple reasons, I'm not doing it.

If it's sorted that it was a Trojan I'm no longer interested.
--
Andreas

On 11/17/21 12:28 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-11-17, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check with
>>>> Virustotal. Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to
>>>> upload twice.
>>>
>>> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to
>>> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put
>>> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a
>>> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and tell me
>>> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside then.
>>
>> Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how
>> to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be.
>>
>> This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks
>> and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just
>> automatically clicking those links ........
>>
>> I'd far rather check 100 iffy e-mails than have to restore
>> dozens of PCs after a ransomware attack. Been there ....
>
> Yup. It's amazing how much a little bit of common sense can
> avoid these mishaps.
>
> If I see a message claiming to be from a long-lost friend,
> or one that promises the world if I just click on this button
> here, the first thing I do is to check the from address.
> A lot of scammers don't even try to disguise it, and seeing
> a suffix like .ru or .tw is a dead giveaway. Also, I'll hover
> my mouse over the magic button and see what URL comes up on
> the status line; again, anything funny here signals danger.

Every time I find a bad one, I mail everybody THAT it's
bad AND include a non-preachy little summary of WHY it's
bad ... including things like links to Russia or mystery
foreign addresses, non-existent companies, really vague
and general content, odd spelling and grammar. The last
bunch had South African links. By not getting preachy it's
possible to EDUCATE - give them more clues to look for in
the NEXT scam mail.

> Plus there's the message text itself. If the message were
> really from a friend, youy'd recognize the style. But even
> with strangers, the kinds of broken English in many scam
> messages should set off alarm bells.
>
> Worst case, I'll use Thunderbird's "view source" option
> to look at the actual contents of the message. There
> can be lots of interesting goodies on display there.
>
> If someone claims to be using your webcam to spy on you,
> are his threats really credible if your machine doesn't
> even have a webcam to begin with?
>
> The trouble with all these techniques is that they require
> time and care to use. In a world where convenience trumps
> everything, most people would rather risk being compromised
> than take the few seconds it needs to check things out.
>
> Too bad "common sense" is such a misnomer...

The IMPULSE is to just click the inviting link, BELIEVE
what's in the mail. Despite contrarians, humans ARE
generally optimistic and trusting. The scammers KNOW
this, it's how they make their money .....

Anyway, within a small/medium environment is IS possible
to inject some skepticism and educate about the signs of
a scam mail. Really BIG orgs though - yer screwed. For
sure SOMEBODY will be fooled.

LibreOffice and Linux VMs are REALLY valuable tools.
You can open weird mails in a protected environment,
with ClamAV, plus open MS files and PDFs with non
MS apps that won't automatically run all the macros
and aren't binary-compatible with Winders. Once in
a while you even need to use GHex or equiv to put a
microscope on things.

Meanwhile, on the Winders boxes, Norton IS pretty
good and I'd rec ZoneAlarm Anti-Ransomware thrown
in underneath as well. Won't save you against all
stupidity but it's better than nothing. Layered,
detailed, daily backups - online, offline and
layered - are the other half of the equation. Oh,
and those backups should be done on Linux/BSD boxes :-)

On 11/17/21 2:26 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 11/17/21 10:20, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 01:29:22 -0500, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/21 4:19 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:02:26 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, just today got another .xlsb (what .xlsb is anyway?) to check
>>>>> with
>>>>> Virustotal.  Not to be proud or something but this year I was first to
>>>>> upload twice.
>>>> Those in my opinion are not malicious but contain information how to
>>>> contact the scammer. Am interested. If you still have it, could you put
>>>> it into an encrypted ZIP file (that the mail ISP cannot check against a
>>>> database of scammy files), email it to me (address is valid) and
>>>> tell me
>>>> the password you gave the ZIP file? I'll have a look what's inside
>>>> then.
>>>
>>>    Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how
>>>    to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be.
>>
>> There is a group for mail spam <news:news.admin.net-abuse.email>. Please
>> consider to set a follow-up there if you want to continue to discuss
>> email scam.

Noted, thanks.

However Linux is a VERY useful tool for sysadmins
to examine/autopsy suspicious mails.

>> consider the target audience of this scam does not read (or know
>> about) in the usenet. It doesn't make sense to post rules "how to not get
>> scammed" there.
>>
>> It's better put on a web page that people would find it there. But the
>> target audience doesn't look up information (like a (even if fake) email
>> address) coming with this scam.
>>
>>>    This has become a PLAGUE of late. How to spot the tricks
>>>    and, most importantly, how to keep Joe User from just
>>>    automatically clicking those links ........
>
>     Of Late my foot!  It has been a plague since BBS days.

Yes, I remember the Pakistani Brain Virus :-)

EXTREMELY clever for the time.

DID take a little while to download over a 300 baud
acoustic modem though !

However those were easy to detect. TODAYS stuff is both
more sophisticated and in VASTLY greater volume. Self-
mutating code to dodge signature recognition. Deeply
buried malware in BIG html/javascript/php/attachments.
It's gone from "occasional annoyance" to "extreme and
constant threat".

In the end, always PREPARE for the worst. Make mirror
backups of every box, Macrium or something, and LOTS
of layered backups online and off. It's the diff
between being back up in six hours, six weeks, or
just never.

"ConvenienceWare" like SolarWinds is bad biz too.
The IDEA is to be cheap - a lot fewer sysadmins, a
few can remotely manage lots of boxes. As we've
seen however, it's ALSO a conduit so bad actors
can DESTROY mass quantities of systems very
efficiently. A IT company once wondered why I
didn't set up Winders boxes so I could push
updates to all at once - SO much more convenient.
Well ....

Once I'm retired someone WILL set up all the boxes
that way - and, soon enough, KaBOOM. Then their
lawyers will deny responsibility, some obscure
wording WAY down in the contract .......
threat".

>     Because my phone has been advertised as a contact for several
> organization over the years the trash calls have always been bad for
> the last 40 years.

A reason I never publish such data :-)

>> I don't think that is possible, or ever will. It might work to an ad on
>> TV or Facebook to make people understand. But who's paying for the ad?
>>
>
>     The Better Business Bureau should do that maybe with assistance
> from a government agency.

The money/authority/politics might be too difficult.

>     It is very hard to get people to pay attention to simple
> matters but if it looks too good to be true it may be a lie.

99% chance it's a deadly lie.

On 11/17/21 8:25 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> 166p1 <z24ba6.net>:
> 166p1> The PROBLEM is not the Informed ... it' that Average User who
> 166p1> is both credulous and clicks on those links without a second
> 166p1> thought. Any one of them can bring down a whole org.
>
> Only if the org has incompetent admins (or no admins at all)
> and uses insecure-by-design windows PCs that are not properly
> locked.

And IF you try to lock them down THAT tight - emulating
Vista or worse - they won't put up with it. Daily tasks
become almost un-doable. Valuable people QUIT over such
shit. Bosses wonder why productivity has plummeted.

And no, you are NOT going to get everybody to switch
to Linux or OpenBSD. Not nearly enough "world standard"
apps for them, plus users might have to KNOW something
about computers too ....

In short, a fantasy world.

95% ARE going to be Winders forever and always,
that's the truth of it. 95% of the users WILL be
click-pretty-link stupid at least once in a while
(or All The Time). This is the truth the bad actors
are WELL aware of.

So, ASSUME bad things ARE gonna happen.

Here's what I've done of late :

For the important boxes, install Macrium Reflect Free.
Write a Python script or just a batch file to open
a shared backup drive (on a Linux box of course) just
before it's needed, and then close it again after.
Keep at least two backups of each box. Lunch hour
has proven best.

Then, on the Linux box, make dupes of the backups
to at least one other place. A DropBox Pro account
that keeps layered copies is good and not very
expensive.

Encourage, indeed try to coerce, users to store their
working files on a network drive rather than C: ...
then you can backup those at night, again in
multiple places/ways. Always pre-encrypt any data
going to any 'cloud' storage site no matter WHAT
they claim about security or promises about never
selling your data.

In this way you can mitigate the damage that IS
going to happen, have the core of the org back
up and running pretty damned quick.

This is the reality. You will NEVER be able to
impose enough "systemic" security on Winders
boxes - they're just not designed for it and/or
will be such a pain they'll hire a more mellow
IT guru.

Small/medium biz just ain't the DOD's nuclear
weapons lab. THERE you might get away with the
hyper-anal security measures (actually there
should be NO Winders boxes in such an org).
But Mom & Pop org and other smaller biz/govt
sorts, you need to take the "quick recovery"
tact forwards instead.

Le 14-11-2021, Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> a écrit :
> with <slrnsovljh.4uv.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> Le 13-11-2021, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a écrit :
>>> On 13/11/2021 11:06, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>>> The claim is it can be something like 60 times faster to use the GUI
>>>> than to edit config files. So for this claim, I want examples.
>>> Well lets take a GUI desktop.
>> OK.
>>> Clicking and dragging an icon is a lot faster than finding the config
>>> file and editing it :-)
>> It depends. And it certainly doesn't takes hours. So it's not a good
>> example whatever.
>
> As I understand your disagreement, you are talking about different
> configs.

Yes, that's why I try to come back to the initial claim each time.

> You (sc@...) are talking about configs as understood on this side of The
> GUI Wall -- more-or-less convoluted (sets of) text files for servers,
> bots, clients (placing editors in this category too) etc. Those configs
> are edited once (mostly, prominent exception would be killfile (whatever
> actual name)) and then forgotten until upstream brakes something. Such
> breaks are followed by run through configs, pushing the thing into
> working shape, and forgotten again. Cycle Of Life, if I may.

Something like that, but not only to take care of issues. To improve
things too. Each time I realise I write always the same thing, I script
it to improve efficiency.

> You (tnp@...) are talking about what on that other side of The GUI Wall
> can be achieved with applying menus and dialogs (with assorted buttons,
> lists, and whatnot) only. Thus, incoming newsflash, nobody here applies
> ls(1) by editing configs. Or cat(1). Or grep(1). This list goes on
> and on then reaches awk, perl, and python or whatever. Some of these
> things don't even have config (those things keep their configurations in
> the environment).

Yes, and my point is not about which one must be chosen. Each one do as
he wants. My point is, if something which takes minutes with a GUI would
need hours to be done in CLI, I'd like to know what it is.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 15-11-2021, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> a écrit :
>
> Btw. got your mail ad replied, but it's stuck in the mail queue of my
> ISP, still trying to deliver. But I'm afraid it will eventually (in some
> 12 hours from ow) bounce.

His email is invalid, he knows it, of course. I already received emails
from him, and when I replied I get a bounce because of it.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 17-11-2021, 166p1 <z24ba6.net> a écrit :
>
> Is there a usenet group dedicated to e-mail scams and how
> to spot them ? If not, there OUGHT to be.

To spot them, the most important thing is to use your brain. Do you
really believe someone, who has no reason to have heard about you, will
chose _you_ to give you a lot of money. You never plays and win lottery?
You never sold anything and received an invoice? No need to look
further. At the end of the first 10 lines of your message I knew it was
scam, there was no need to analyse anything.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 20 Nov 2021 09:30:21 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
> Le 15-11-2021, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> a écrit :
>>
>> Btw. got your mail ad replied, but it's stuck in the mail queue of my
>> ISP, still trying to deliver. But I'm afraid it will eventually (in some
>> 12 hours from ow) bounce.
>
> His email is invalid, he knows it, of course. I already received emails
> from him, and when I replied I get a bounce because of it.

He wrote me a mail with a probably valid email address. But his ISP
wouldn't accept it anyway.

F'up2 poster.
--
Andreas

with <slrnsphf1t.1ap.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER
wrote:
> Le 14-11-2021, Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> a écrit :
>> with <slrnsovljh.4uv.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER
>> wrote:
>>> Le 13-11-2021, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a
>>> écrit :
>>>> On 13/11/2021 11:06, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>>>>> The claim is it can be something like 60 times faster to use the
>>>>> GUI than to edit config files. So for this claim, I want examples.
*SKIP*
>>>> Clicking and dragging an icon is a lot faster than finding the
>>>> config file and editing it :-)
>>> It depends. And it certainly doesn't takes hours. So it's not a good
>>> example whatever.
*SKIP*
>> You (tnp@...) are talking about what on that other side of The GUI
>> Wall can be achieved with applying menus and dialogs (with assorted
>> buttons, lists, and whatnot) only. Thus, incoming newsflash, nobody
>> here applies ls(1) by editing configs. Or cat(1). Or grep(1). This
>> list goes on and on then reaches awk, perl, and python or whatever.
>> Some of these things don't even have config (those things keep their
>> configurations in the environment).
> Yes, and my point is not about which one must be chosen. Each one do
> as he wants. My point is, if something which takes minutes with a GUI
> would need hours to be done in CLI, I'd like to know what it is.

And I'm glad to oblige. May I introduce about:config (and friends) to
this discussion? Sure, it's not on scale minutes vs hours but still.
Thus it goes like this. Spend 3..5 min and find out there isn't
anything you can do. Or waste hours searching through text and binary
files, documentation (so to speak), then internet noise, then sources
and still can't make the thing do what you want. Does this count?

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

Le 20-11-2021, Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> a écrit :
> with <slrnsphf1t.1ap.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER
> wrote:
>> Yes, and my point is not about which one must be chosen. Each one do
>> as he wants. My point is, if something which takes minutes with a GUI
>> would need hours to be done in CLI, I'd like to know what it is.
>
> And I'm glad to oblige. May I introduce about:config (and friends) to
> this discussion? Sure, it's not on scale minutes vs hours but still.
> Thus it goes like this. Spend 3..5 min and find out there isn't
> anything you can do. Or waste hours searching through text and binary
> files, documentation (so to speak), then internet noise, then sources
> and still can't make the thing do what you want. Does this count?

I'm not sure I understand. If you are telling me you have to learn
everything before using any config file when you master the GUI, it's
not telling a lot. It's like saying programming in C is easier than
programming in python because you no C and you don't know python. Or
it's the same as telling it's faster to go two miles by foot than by car
because you are unable to start your car. It's not information.

I want an example, not a philosophical discussion between GUI and CLI
which I have already an opinion. I want an example which can makes me
learn something. It looks like nobody understand what an example is, so
I'll provide some.

I have a directory with thousand files all mixed up, I want to put every
picture in a directory and every pdf in another directory.

I want to test a tool without interfering with my other tools. So I want
to test it in a new VM. I need to create a VM, install my distro on it
and test the tool.

I took thousand pictures on my last vacation, they are too big, so I
want to resize them.

That are examples, not my personal life. What example can you provide
me which will make me conclude that the solution is really faster by GUI
than by CLI. I don't care if you are more confident with the GUI than
with the CLI: you keep using your GUI and it's fine with me.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 11/21/21 4:04 AM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 20-11-2021, Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> a écrit :
>> with <slrnsphf1t.1ap.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER
>> wrote:
>>> Yes, and my point is not about which one must be chosen. Each one do
>>> as he wants. My point is, if something which takes minutes with a GUI
>>> would need hours to be done in CLI, I'd like to know what it is.
>>
>> And I'm glad to oblige. May I introduce about:config (and friends) to
>> this discussion? Sure, it's not on scale minutes vs hours but still.
>> Thus it goes like this. Spend 3..5 min and find out there isn't
>> anything you can do. Or waste hours searching through text and binary
>> files, documentation (so to speak), then internet noise, then sources
>> and still can't make the thing do what you want. Does this count?
>
> I'm not sure I understand. If you are telling me you have to learn
> everything before using any config file when you master the GUI, it's
> not telling a lot. It's like saying programming in C is easier than
> programming in python because you no C and you don't know python. Or
> it's the same as telling it's faster to go two miles by foot than by car
> because you are unable to start your car. It's not information.
>
> I want an example, not a philosophical discussion between GUI and CLI

OK ... look up ALL the steps you have to take - on the CL - to set
up a RAID6 array. Lots and lots of LONG fiddly commands with weird
params you could literally spend and hour researching. I did this
about a year ago on a Centos box. Steps, steps, steps - funky
setting after funky setting and you're never quite sure if you
got it all right.

Now - fire up OpenSUSE and set one up with the YAST2 GUI. It knows
all the files that need to be tweaked and does it for you, it knows
(and will TELL you) about the various options and if/why you might
want to pick set X over set Y. It knows what disks you have, makes
adjustments if they's not QUITE the same size. Then you click the
button. All over in literally five minutes.

I would say that's a very good example of how a GUI can pull lots
of various bits together in an easy-to-understand/use fashion.

> which I have already an opinion. I want an example which can makes me
> learn something. It looks like nobody understand what an example is, so
> I'll provide some.
>
> I have a directory with thousand files all mixed up, I want to put every
> picture in a directory and every pdf in another directory.
>
> I want to test a tool without interfering with my other tools. So I want
> to test it in a new VM. I need to create a VM, install my distro on it
> and test the tool.
>
> I took thousand pictures on my last vacation, they are too big, so I
> want to resize them.
>
> That are examples, not my personal life. What example can you provide
> me which will make me conclude that the solution is really faster by GUI
> than by CLI. I don't care if you are more confident with the GUI than
> with the CLI: you keep using your GUI and it's fine with me.
>

with <slrnspk2sp.1am.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER
wrote:
> Le 20-11-2021, Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> a écrit :
>> with <slrnsphf1t.1ap.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER
>> wrote:

>>> Yes, and my point is not about which one must be chosen. Each one do
>>> as he wants. My point is, if something which takes minutes with a
>>> GUI would need hours to be done in CLI, I'd like to know what it is.
>> And I'm glad to oblige. May I introduce about:config (and friends)
>> to this discussion? Sure, it's not on scale minutes vs hours but
>> still. Thus it goes like this. Spend 3..5 min and find out there
>> isn't anything you can do. Or waste hours searching through text and
>> binary files, documentation (so to speak), then internet noise, then
>> sources and still can't make the thing do what you want. Does this
>> count?
> I'm not sure I understand.
*SKIP*

I don't interpret it as misunderstanding, more like misreading, but see
below.

> I want an example, not a philosophical discussion between GUI and CLI
> which I have already an opinion. I want an example which can makes me
> learn something. It looks like nobody understand what an example is,
> so I'll provide some.

And rightfully so. Unfortunately, GUI-people don't keep up with this
discussion.

> I have a directory with thousand files all mixed up, I want to put
> every picture in a directory and every pdf in another directory.

Did it. Scripting rules.

> I want to test a tool without interfering with my other tools. So I
> want to test it in a new VM. I need to create a VM, install my distro
> on it and test the tool.

Can't say. chroot(8) is enough for me.

> I took thousand pictures on my last vacation, they are too big, so I
> want to resize them.

Did it. Unfortunetely, imagemagick hadn't been up to task. Will return
to it later.

> That are examples, not my personal life. What example can you provide
> me which will make me conclude that the solution is really faster by
> GUI than by CLI. I don't care if you are more confident with the GUI
> than with the CLI: you keep using your GUI and it's fine with me.

I understand your frustration. But you have to understand, on *this*
side of The GUI Wall there aren't any success stories.

And GUI-people are absent from this discussion. May be because it's by
design. C'mon GUI-people, sure you can do better -- fight for your
cause.

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On 11/21/21 08:45, Eric Pozharski wrote:
> with <slrnspk2sp.1am.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER
> wrote:
>> Le 20-11-2021, Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> a écrit :
>>> with <slrnsphf1t.1ap.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, and my point is not about which one must be chosen. Each one do
>>>> as he wants. My point is, if something which takes minutes with a
>>>> GUI would need hours to be done in CLI, I'd like to know what it is.
>>> And I'm glad to oblige. May I introduce about:config (and friends)
>>> to this discussion? Sure, it's not on scale minutes vs hours but
>>> still. Thus it goes like this. Spend 3..5 min and find out there
>>> isn't anything you can do. Or waste hours searching through text and
>>> binary files, documentation (so to speak), then internet noise, then
>>> sources and still can't make the thing do what you want. Does this
>>> count?
>> I'm not sure I understand.
> *SKIP*
>
> I don't interpret it as misunderstanding, more like misreading, but see
> below.
>
>> I want an example, not a philosophical discussion between GUI and CLI
>> which I have already an opinion. I want an example which can makes me
>> learn something. It looks like nobody understand what an example is,
>> so I'll provide some.
>
> And rightfully so. Unfortunately, GUI-people don't keep up with this
> discussion.
>
>> I have a directory with thousand files all mixed up, I want to put
>> every picture in a directory and every pdf in another directory.
>
> Did it. Scripting rules.
>
>> I want to test a tool without interfering with my other tools. So I
>> want to test it in a new VM. I need to create a VM, install my distro
>> on it and test the tool.
>
> Can't say. chroot(8) is enough for me.
>
>> I took thousand pictures on my last vacation, they are too big, so I
>> want to resize them.
>
> Did it. Unfortunetely, imagemagick hadn't been up to task. Will return
> to it later.
>
>> That are examples, not my personal life. What example can you provide
>> me which will make me conclude that the solution is really faster by
>> GUI than by CLI. I don't care if you are more confident with the GUI
>> than with the CLI: you keep using your GUI and it's fine with me.
>
> I understand your frustration. But you have to understand, on *this*
> side of The GUI Wall there aren't any success stories.
>
> And GUI-people are absent from this discussion. May be because it's by
> design. C'mon GUI-people, sure you can do better -- fight for your
> cause.
>
Well I am a bit behind in photo sorting but I created directories for
my downloaded documents from the git-go. I added
a specific directory in /home/bliss/Manga/. The PDFs go under
categories for /Documents, /LinuxPro Magazine, /PCLinux magazine,
Hardware/ and even one no longer on /home/bliss/ for Linux Advice. All
these except Manga which I consider a special class are in /Documents.
In /Downloads I have many sub-directories for each of the many
distributions I am downloading for the LUG to keep their library up to
date. I move the stuff to a small portable drive to carry to in-person
meetings if we ever have them again.
I have tried to give up that job but no one else wants it up to
this time.

That will be about all I can manage to carry to meetings at 84.
So that is what I do about that specific problem is start sorting as
early as you realize you are accumulating stuff. But I started this
stuff about 40 years ago on the Amiga. Before that I was trained a
bit in administrative stuff and created systems of document filing
with just paper and the Alphabet and the Calendar.

bliss - brought to you by the power and ease of PCLinuxOS
and a minor case of hypergraphia

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 11/21/21 11:45 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
> with <slrnspk2sp.1am.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER
> wrote:
>> Le 20-11-2021, Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> a écrit :
>>> with <slrnsphf1t.1ap.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> Stéphane CARPENTIER
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, and my point is not about which one must be chosen. Each one do
>>>> as he wants. My point is, if something which takes minutes with a
>>>> GUI would need hours to be done in CLI, I'd like to know what it is.
>>> And I'm glad to oblige. May I introduce about:config (and friends)
>>> to this discussion? Sure, it's not on scale minutes vs hours but
>>> still. Thus it goes like this. Spend 3..5 min and find out there
>>> isn't anything you can do. Or waste hours searching through text and
>>> binary files, documentation (so to speak), then internet noise, then
>>> sources and still can't make the thing do what you want. Does this
>>> count?
>> I'm not sure I understand.
> *SKIP*
>
> I don't interpret it as misunderstanding, more like misreading, but see
> below.
>
>> I want an example, not a philosophical discussion between GUI and CLI
>> which I have already an opinion. I want an example which can makes me
>> learn something. It looks like nobody understand what an example is,
>> so I'll provide some.
>
> And rightfully so. Unfortunately, GUI-people don't keep up with this
> discussion.

I provided a good example of where a GUI can
cut hours off of a CL task.

Oh, and you can batch-process images with GIMP.

Sometimes the CLI is best, sometimes the GUI is a lot
better. It's not an either/or situation in Linux.