Subject: No Virus Warnings To Me.
From: Virus_Warner@
Sender: Virus_Warner@

			I append: http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/std/virus.txt
			See Also: http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/std/no_ms.txt

Ref. the virus notification you forwarded;

Thanks, but No thanks ;-)  I never need warnings of computer virus,
I am immune, & do not use or need anti virus software !  
Please skip me on future virus warnings,
Pleased to hear from you about other things though :-)

I am immune to viruses because:
  - I use No Microsoft operating systems, & No Word etc.
  - No Flash on Web, (not even under an Linux emulator)
  - No program binaries I have not built from public source code.

Virus Warnings & Scanners Provide Inadequate Security:
   Remember some virus warnings are false,
       Issued to waste time & Internet bandwidth.  (Yes, I assume you
       thought it probably genuine, No I don't waste time to analyse
       authenticity, as all virus warnings are irrelevant to me).
   
   Virus scanners are an inferior solution.
      They tell you if you've already received a virus etc that someone
      else previously got, that they reported, that was analysed &
      built into a recognition database, that was broadcast & loaded
      into your PC, & scanned for.  If a virus gets direct to you
      before that you get infected.
   
   Manualy avoiding clicking on things is unreliable, mistakes happen:
       It takes fractions of a second for a virus to infect, & not
       much longer for it to harvest all email addresses of your friends
       etc, & not long to find bank numbers etc.
   
Why I'm immune to Viruses (& how you could be too!)
   I use safer free software, built from publicly inspectable sources
   	http://www.berklix.com/free/
   With over twenty thousand free packages
    	http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/freebsd/packages/
   What's the catch ? It's so free, there's no budget to advertise
   it, unlike when you buy Microsoft & they then advertise more at you.

Technical:
   Why No Viruses:
      It is theoretically possible to create Unix viruses, but
      doesn't happen.  Why ? Well the Unix operating system has
      always been better protected than Microsoft, with root & user
      mode, & only fools waste that protection, habitually work as
      root, it would also be hard to disseminate due to the different
      hardware & OS platform variants, & if one runs only binaries
      self built from public sources, & the public sources are open
      to scrutiny ... etc )
 
   My system is self compiled from free source code,
     I don't run un-sourced binaries with unknown contents, I run
     no executables I haven't compiled myself, I can look at the
     internals of my computer operating system, courtesy of that
     source code (think of buying a car where the engine & body are
     made of translucent glass & all faults are visible).
   
   We (FreeBSD) have a source code control system on our master site,
     only authorised people can commit changes to those sources.
   
   We have a validation system for updates.
   
   There are security alert lists for the version of Unix (FreeBSD) I use.
   They inform me far quicker & in far more detail, & authoritatively
   than Microsoft users could hope for.
 
   I don't run MS even in emulators, (except maybe inside test
   sand boxes, with eg chroot, jails, virtualbox etc, &
   changing internal net IDs from trusted to untrusted).
 
   Volunteers read our sources to enhance the functionality,
   they would discover viruses inactive in the source.
   
   Occasional source code reading snap check validations are done.

   Yes FreeBSD can run anti virus ported packages.
   No we don't need them ourselves. We just run them to protect clients PCs
   not running BSD, if required.

If you're still determined to run Microsoft:
   Look at this 9 Apr 2012 report:
	http://computer-forensics.sans.org/blog/2012/04/09/is-anti-virus-really-dead-a-real-world-simulation-created-for-forensic-data-yields-surprising-results
  1st sentence of 2nd para of Conclusion:
	"If anyone needs just a little proof that you are using A/V
	products to mainly defend against low-skilled attackers,
	then there it is."

  2 main sources of spam:
    + Virus'ed PCs running Microsoft that get harvested, then
      sometimes converted to zombie spammers, making MS more unpopular
      among non MS users, who get spammed from PCs of clueless
      owners running MS.
    + Web sites with non occluded addresses.
  
    Microsoft was lax on security since DOS, when other OSs had
    better security.  The mass market want maximimaly convenient
    software, that requires minimal security as it's always partly
    a trade off.  Maximal profits push to simplistic protection.
    
    Its like a world without driving lessons, where most have
    unlocked cars, stolen & crashed at random, inc. crashed into
    cars of those of us who do lock our cars.
    
Imagine if the environmental credo "Polluter Pays" was applied to MS' OSs ?

    If countries had laws than mandated OS's sold with secure
    defaults Off had to sell with a much higher pollution tax
    percentage, & OSs eg MS susceptible to viruses, but with a lot
    of extra protection software turned On, sold for a lower pollution
    tax percentage ?  ... Would that force people to "Install
    Something Better" & reduce spam pollution ?