Christmas Cards
December 18, 2004 5:44 AM   Subscribe

With the dangers of e-Christmas cards becoming apparent, perhaps it is time to return to sending Christmas cards the old fashioned way. Or not.
posted by Quartermass (11 comments total)
People who open attachments without using antivirus deserve everything they get. Merry Christmas!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:51 AM on December 18, 2004 [1 favorite]

Dunno if P_G's cracking a 133t joke, but what the hey:

S'truth, folks! Why, gawrsh, everyone who doesn't have "sucker" hand-stamped upon their forehead deserves to have their boxen violated. Yep. All of you who do have A/V, but get infected anyway, tough shit. You don't download the latest updates and patches, it serves you right. "But wait", I hear you whine. "I do keep on track. I just got screwed by a phisher using my friend/cow-orker's spoofed IP". Well, you-

posted by Smart Dalek at 6:22 AM on December 18, 2004

Capnwacky, I know James Lilkes (well, not in the sense of ever having met him or anything, but, well, you know what I mean) and you are no James Lileks.

Talked with a friend at work about eChristmas cards...we don't like them. No sir, not one little bit.
posted by 1016 at 7:08 AM on December 18, 2004

Oh, but P_G it doesn't only affect them. Since their box has been compromised, every adress in it is game, and I get to watch thousands of emails pop into mine, or my email adress used as the fake "from" sender. People who don't understand that the sender is faked send me lovely seasons greeting like "eeeef uuuuu!!!", as I sit there every morning deleting all the crap that ends up in the hostmaster box.

Next time i rebuild sendmail I will start using the Sender Policy Framework, if a lot of servers do, it just might help.
posted by dabitch at 7:17 AM on December 18, 2004

The stock photography look of that site turns me right off, but the idea is intriguing.
posted by dabitch at 7:19 AM on December 18, 2004

My favorite: Oh my God, this little girl is dead!

But really, some good cards.

More examples at this Smithsonian site.
posted by hue at 7:38 AM on December 18, 2004

Why am I getting the anti-leech image (for every image on the page) when looking at something on capnwacky?

That's very odd.
posted by socratic at 8:48 AM on December 18, 2004

If you're looking to make a creepy/wacky holiday card, it's hard to top this image.
posted by herc at 8:59 AM on December 18, 2004

socratic, are you using Norton internet stuff, or something else that "anonymizes" your http_referer? Then the normal old fashioned anti-leech check fails and the leechimage kicks in.
posted by dabitch at 9:08 AM on December 18, 2004

Actually, 1016, we've e-mailed Mr. Lileks and spoken with folks who know him and he seems to lik eour feature just fine.
posted by ice_cream_motor at 7:23 PM on January 2, 2005

So, of course I put a typo in that damn post.
posted by ice_cream_motor at 7:23 PM on January 2, 2005

« Older the mystery of neurocam   |   Naked Power: The Homeland Security Collection Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments