I don't see how she's done anything to be complimentary about at all. She doesn't seem to acknowledge ANY irresponsibility on her part in writing the first article, doesn't really acknowledge your corrections, and appears only to be interested in sucking more quotes or ideas out of you for her next journalistic debacle.
Any respectable journalist knows that fact-checking includes technical fact-checking, and that it is THE most important task of the trade.
I've been interviewed (and quoted) by the WSJ before, and I can promise you that they have much better staff than this. Don't waste too much time on an obvious n00b.
Yes, that's what I'm afraid of, hence why I'm going to print here simultaneously. However, if it means exposure for IT security, people doing better things on their networks instead of the crap she posted before, then I'm all for it and I've enjoyed putting my stuff across. It was so tempting to write complete nonsense, but I resisted (you may think otherwise of course).
Plus she's let me be quite patronising without telling me to F off, which I would have in her position.
But then I'm like that.
Hi Rob,
I can still recall all the bullets I did take standing back then, and never realizing how they hurt me. As we discussed today, it's youth.
shrdlu - IMO journalism died decades ago. Today tabloids are the rule, and they are the only rule. Never say you're sorry even when you're caught with the smoking gun seems to be the way they are going.
Back when I studies media and journalism, controlling and checking your sources and facts was the ONLY trick of the trade. Not so anymore, even in respectful papers like WSJ it seems.
Things your IT department wished you knew:
1. Don't open the spam. We mean it. We don't care how interesting it looks. DON'T OPEN THE F****N SPAM.
2. Don't bother saving things on your C: drive. We can read them there too.
3. We know you're lying when you say you didn't do anything. If you didn't do anything, the computer wouldn't suddenly be broken.
4. If you are too busy or important to learn how to use your computer, please do us all a favor and just return it to us. Go back to a pad of paper and a pencil. PLEASE.
Thank you. I feel marginally better now.
ROFL 
***UPDATE***
Just got another mail from Vauhini, she's really pleased with what I sent over and is going to get back in touch in a few days with more questions.
I think we may be onto a winner. And who says I can't be co-operative.
Apart from shrdlu...
A friend of mine got the same EXACT e-mail as you, requesting assistance with a follow-up e-mail with horror stories. Clever form letter trolling for more, eh?
Two points:
- Intentionally bypassing security and divulging IP is a felony in the US, so the WSJ encouraged readers to commit felonies.
- Can you imagine how much McAfee and PWC cringed when they saw their name associated with that load of crap?
Yes, I thought this was probably the case, however, if we can get a PROPER security message out there now, maybe it's not so bad.
I wasn't aware of the felony aspect of the article, that IS interesting, your second point was the basis of my mail to her though. If I was the PwC guy, I would be worried for my job. I'm covering my ass as much as I can by printing my version of events here beforehand. It will appear over the weekend.
As for being a "clever" letter, that's a matter of opinion!
Rob,
I hope your plan works, but I am skeptical. I can't help thinking that her next article will be about bird watching for fun and profit, so any commitment to the content will be fleeting at best.
I also remember something about not offending people who buy printing ink by the barrel...be careful and hope she at least spells your name right.
Commenting by HaloScan
