 |
 |
I agree with you John. Even if this came from someone at the Computer Lab, our users would probably pass it by or slam me or our department here in the Clinical Center with e-mails or phone calls asking us what the e-mail says. Or more importantly, "Should I worry about this?" Instead of just reading it. So I feel that if a warning was sent out to the masses, it will most likely be ignored. I have had so many people calling our department about what to do with the Pilot to MSU mail upgrade. If they read the e-mail, they could figure it out. However, they just see it as junk mail in most cases. Not sure why, but that's the way it happens here. Javier -----Original Message----- From: MSU Network Administrators Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Gorentz Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:05 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [MSUNAG] Virus notifications; repository for official mailings At 01:18 PM 3/3/04 -0500, Rich Wiggins wrote: >A couple of folks have asked if we have done or will do a mass mailing >about the Beagle / Bagle storm. Thus far we have not. I guess our >feeling is it is hard to combat a mass mailing with a mass mailing. >It could lead to even more confusion. Our help desk phones are >quite busy already. >Computer support folks in departments could help if you have >channels for reaching your faculty, staff, or students. I rarely do mass mailings about these things within our department. Other people have other ideas about what I should do. But if I sent out an e-mail about every virus making the rounds, people would be inundated with more mail to ignore. I hector people once in a while about e-mail and password hygiene, but I try NOT to give the impression that they are going to get an explicit warning from me about every new danger. I did make an exception and forward Rich's message about this Beagle/Bagle thing. But sure enough, next thing I got was a series of messages from people, all of which indicated to me in one way or another that they hadn't read Rich's message carefully. So I had to re-answer some of the questions Rich's message had already answered. I suspect that if you sent out a mass mailing about this issue, I'd end up doing the exact same thing again -- explaining things that were already explained by Rich better than I could explain them myself. Or re-assuring people that we're talking about the one and same threat. I think you're right. The more warnings and explanations you give, and the more accurate you make your information, the more people will be confused. If you DON'T want to confuse people, you can do it best by giving out false or misleading information. Your friendly cynic, John Gorentz W.K.Kellogg Biological Station