On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:48:20 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> 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.
Sorry, I had not understood you were conflating spam with virus/worm/DoS
abuse or that you had jumped from a munged email address used in a news
posting to abusive email activities. I'll try harder to keep up :-)