🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:49:05 -0700, in
<6okd76lvg3mpl1j2a276oocr4rumo0p9nd@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:34:33 -0400, in <i56j4q01q73@news2.newsguy.com>,
>"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>>From: "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>>
>>| On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:10:36 -0400, in <i55eiu0305m@news3.newsguy.com>,
>>| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>
>>>>From: "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>>
>>>>< snip >
>>
>>>>>>| Best bet is to search for answers with Google Groups before posting,
>>>>>>| and after posting to separate (the little) wheat from (lots of) chaff.
>>
>>>>>>Actually - No.
>>
>>>>>>Many searches are poisoned so one can end up downloading more malware.
>>
>>>>| I've yet to see any case of that.  Proof?
>>
>>>>http://www.bluecoat.com/blog/google-image-searches-lead-malware
>>>>http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/blog/2010/6/30/red-button-seo-poisoning-and-
>>>>malware-campaign/180.aspx
>>>>http://www.downloadsquad.com/2010/04/20/gray-powells-unfortunate-legacy-seo-poisoning-
>>>>and-malware/
>>
>>
>>| There's nothing wrong with Google.
>>| These are just the usual malware sites.
>>| You might as well just give up on the Internet.
>>
>>The point is through SEO poisoning the infected user won't be able "...separate (the 
>>little) wheat from (lots of) chaff".
>
>No such problems here.
>
>"The lad doth protest too much, methinks!"  [with apologies to WS]

p.s.  "SEO poisoning" doesn't even apply to the kind of Google Groups
search (not Web search) I suggested.

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]