Outlook 2002 ships in a much more secure mode than its predecessors.[1] Other than getting people to agree to the obvious; that there were significant security concerns with previous versions of the product, what's the point of this conversation?
If it's simply a Microsoft flame, there are more appropriate forums for it.[2] What is my net takeaway from this conversation? What can one reasonably expect that I or anyone else has learned as a result of it? At least if the discussion had been in haiku or encoded fish taco recipes there might be something of value in this thread. Send a message or 12 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead, it's a much more appropriate venue for voicing your concerns and making specific product suggestions. [1] Insert 4 month discussion on room for improvement which results in nothing actually coming from it since this isn't the proper forum for getting those concerns to Microsoft. [2] alt.microsoft.advocacy or alt.microsoft.die.satan.die perhaps. > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 12:01 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because.... > > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Chris Scharff wrote: > >> Why should *I* have to clean up after *Microsoft's* > mistakes? I paid > >> good money for their software; it is unreasonable to > expect it to be > >> secure in the default configuration? > > > > You're just being a troll like Shawn now right? If you're > not going > > to add anything useful to the conversation, why even have it? > > Alright, I will concede that was a bit heated, but that > attitude really irks me. > > Some customers demand insecure features. Granted. > Historically, Microsoft has implemented those insecure > features by default, leading to security problems for > everyone. Other customers have demanded products designed > with security in mind. Microsoft blames the problem on > customers not installing fixes. > > Am I the only one who sees the inconsistency with this? > Why does Microsoft only listen to the demands of customers > who want insecurity? Why don't the demands of people who > want more secure products count? > > My issue is not with installing updates or correcting > insecure defaults. I am perfectly capable of doing so, thank > you very much. My issue is that the problem does not appear > to be caused simple programming errors, but through a > continued disregard for security on the part of Microsoft. > That makes my job harder than it needs to be, and that is not > something I like. > > To use an analogy, when I buy a car, I do not expect to > have to remove a bolt mounted behind the gas tank to prevent > the vehicle from exploding when involved in a rear-end impact. > > Thankfully, after this latest Nimda fiasco, Microsoft > appears to be waking up to the fact that producing the > software equivalent of a Ford Pinto is not a practice that > instills customer loyalty. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
