Sort of.. However, a lot of collateral damage results. With respect to making repairs, the assumption here is that the demage is in fact, repairable..

>
Well, isn't stupidity of the sort where against many many warnings to the contrary one opens an unknown email its own punishment? <g>
>
>Personally, I think having to repair the damage that in this case (for the most part anyway) is self inflicted is the best sort of "punishment". Fits the crime, is fairly and evenly applied and is totally without bias. <g>
>
>Additionally, it applies those wonderful "life learning events" to exactly the right spot. <g>
>
>Best,
>
>DD
>
>
>
>>Mike..
>>
>>I am not aware of what scam is going on. It is fairly clear that what was passed around was a virus. Again, I am not saying the law should not go after those folks. And yes, the folks that open and pass on the virus are not guilty of criminal behavior since no malicious intent exists. In other words, there is not crime in being stupid. However, that does not make a stupid person less culpable. In other words, they have to share some of the blame. And, with that in mind, deserve some sort of censure/punishment? To the same extent as the author? No. But they derserve something nonetheless. Otherwise, if there are no consequences, the pattern of behavior is sure to exist. Then again, it is sure to continue anyway in all liklihood, regardless of the consequences...
>>
>>>>On the Today show this morning, they had the guy from Symantec who is head of R and D. In his opinion, the best defense - common sense. i.e., folks should no better...
>>>
>>>Common sense will also defend you from a scam artist, but the law often goes after them. I couldn't tell you if they win or not, though.