Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:58:02 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Windows cannot be
>> considered the catalyst for spam, but some might argue that the contrary
>> is true.
> So some might argue that spam can be considered the catalyst for Windows?
> Please explain what that means. It appears to be a sequence of real words
> strung together into a meaningless sentence.
I wasn't clear and also quite ambiguous. I can see it now that you mentioned
it. By "the contrary" I meant to say that Windows might not be (passively)
responsible for spam.
There are many exploits which can be attributed to faulty hardware or
software. For example, certain blogging software encouraged comment spam.
Buggy implementations of XML-RPC encouraged denial of service (DoS) attacks
on Web servers and certain news readers allow the user to crosspost to an
absurd number of newsgroups.