Unnf. So I am infected, huh? Pisser.

::off to update Panda::

(incidentally, and not to encourage anyone, this is a much more interesting use of spam/virus synergies)

So I am infected, huh?

If you were infected you would be sending spam, not receiving it.

Here is the report on it from Symantec: [link]

If you were infected you would be sending spam, not receiving it.

I'm receiving delivery errors, not the message itself.

edit: except -- these are not e-mail addresses from my address book, so if this harvests, it's not me! Thanks, dcp.

An infected computer will put a fake email on the messages it sends out. It's coming from a computer that has your email address in its address book, or in its web browser cache. If you look at the "Received:" headers in the message that is getting bounced, you can track down the IP address that the messages are coming from.

An infected computer will put a fake email on the messages it sends out

That's why I asked! But the page you linked to didn't say it was forging headers. Knowing that it's harvesting address books is what tipped me that it wasn't me.

I wonder whose address books those are -- it looks like it's sending tens of e-mails, if not hundreds, to the same domain name.

If you look at the "Received:" headers in the message that is getting bounced, you can track down the IP address that the messages are coming from.

The bounced message doesn't have any IP addresses in it. Well, aside from the server bouncing, I mean.

It could be coming from your computer, but if I were to make a guess, I would say it was coming from someone who recently visited provocateuse and has your email address in their cache.

It's not being sent from a provocateuse address. Well, a couple were. The ones that now number in the hundreds are "from" my profile address.

Anyone know anything about this?

The entire senior editorial staff of LinuxWorld Magazine has today announced that they will be leaving the magazine, effective immediately.

[link]

LinuxWorld has never particularly impressed me, but still... weird.

We feel that recent articles published with the consent of Sys-Con Media fail to meet minimum generally accepted journalistic codes, and because the management of Sys-Con Media has failed to acknowledge that the articles are by all informed judgment ethically unsupportable, we have decided we must find other avenues for our work.”

What, were they publishing articles that were essentially advertisements?

They were -- strangely enough -- running anti-Linux articles. Or rather, thinly-veiled anti-Linix editorials disguised as articles. [link]