Linux-Advocacy Digest #461, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 17:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joe Ragosta)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Re: Slashdot is down (Jason Long)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Slashdot is down (Mig Mig)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. (Mig Mig)
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. (abraxas)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Mr Rupert)
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! ("ccghst")
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! ("ccghst")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Mr Rupert)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Window managers (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Jim Ross")
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped ("Jim Ross")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 14:05:23 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>
> Which point? The content is hidden behind a picture, the program
>> that is going to launch is even harder to determine. Your only
>> choices are to open or save, and if you save, any subsequent attempt
>> to access the resulting file will in fact have the same effect.
>
> Excuse me, but what the FUCK happened to the possiblity of NOT
>opening the damn mail and checking with whoever sent it FIRST? Sheesh. People
Why bother with email if you have to exchange the information some
other way first? I thought it was supposed to be making things
easier.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:15:40 GMT
In article <8fersp$t35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At the risk of being roundly critcized, let me just say that Microsoft is
> a good company, with highly usable products. They have helped to build a
> huge industry, and have done so during a time of rapid change and
> sometimes conflicting standards.
>
> I think Microsoft is a good company. Not a perfect company, but a good
> one. Their stubborness is a positive attribute - most of the time.
>
> I personally do not think that the public is well served by 'competition',
> in and of itself. Mostly you just get opportunities for businessman, not
> improved service for consumers. The phone companies are an example -
> contantly fighting each other for customers. I end up with phone service
> that is lower in quality. You don't get an operator any more, you get a
> machine. You get your long distance switched without you knowing. You
> get more outages than before, longer waits for directory assistance, and
> so on. This is called competition? I don't think so. Its just greed of
> other businessmen who want in.
>
> If we did not have Microsoft, we might have an industry that was much more
> fractured and much less standarded = mess less usable.
>
> I think things are pretty good and we should acknowledge that. If
> Microsoft has overstepped their bounds, which seems to be the case, then
> we need a senstive and well-thought out remedy; not a knee-jerk reaction.
>
> A breakup seems to extreme to me. But trusting Microsoft to amend the
> objectionable behaviours, on their own, would seem naive. We need
> something in the middle; something moderate and appropriate.
>
> In my view, we ought to have treat Windows as a utility, like electricity
> or gas. It should be considered a utility because functionally, that is
> what it is. The software should be open source, so that we know how it
> works - just as we know how our electric utility works. It should be
> brandless - no preferences, just as our electric utility does not tell us
> what brand of stove to buy (but does tell us what frequencey the
> electricity runs at; a standard). Just be open. To do this we need a
> regulatory board, just as our utilities are regulated.
>
> Beyond that, for things like office suites and other softwares, I say: let
> Microsoft do what it likes, just as anyone else does. Let the market
> drive those things; let them use their size and budget how they want, to
> innovate how they want.
I'm sure your check is on its way.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:26:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> >
> > Which point? The content is hidden behind a picture, the program
> >> that is going to launch is even harder to determine. Your only
> >> choices are to open or save, and if you save, any subsequent attempt
> >> to access the resulting file will in fact have the same effect.
> >
> > Excuse me, but what the FUCK happened to the possiblity of NOT
> >opening the damn mail and checking with whoever sent it FIRST? Sheesh. People
>
> Why bother with email if you have to exchange the information some
> other way first? I thought it was supposed to be making things
> easier.
That statment is tottally idiotic. We were talking about not opening
and ATTACHEMENT until you knew what it was about, not the bloddy email you
twit.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:30:35 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 16:42:07 GMT, John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <F%MR4.38156$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Joseph Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Conclusion, don't even try to install LILO on your computer unless you
>> either have a totally blank hard disk or one of the following: DOS or
>Win95.
>
>Simpler solution: Don't install lilo in the MBR. Use a partition
>instead. I install mine on /dev/hda1 which is one of my Linux
>partitions. Sometimes I boot my msdos partition fro lilo first and then
>use loadlin.exe because I still have peripherals that have to be
>initialized in MSDOS.
Same here. I still see the os/2 boot manager during bootup although I
long ago blew away my os/2 partition for other uses.
------------------------------
From: Jason Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:43:03 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They are also in the middle of a large hardware switch.
> Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Slashdot is down.
>> They always have had their share of technical problems,
>> which is quite embarrassing for a technology forum.
> Its working fine for me. Its been a little shakey for the
> past couple of hours, probably due to the extraordinary rise
> in traffic due to microsoft's latest incredibly stupid move.
> -----yttrx
--
Jason Long
Webmaster http://www.streetrodstuff.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 16:17:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) wrote:
>>Sorry, I disagree. Email attachments should *NOT* be executed by your
>>MUA, period. If you get executable content via e-mail you should take
>>the necessary steps to be able to execute it (i.e. save to disk and
>>spawn it from the shell).
>
>What's the major conceptual difference between (a) double-clicking and
>issuing a confirmation and (b) saving to disk and launching from the
>shell? Is it only that the former is "too easy"? Is that really the
>reason behind all the vicious bashing?
The conceptual difference is that the clear distinction between
(non-executable) data and executable content is blurred to the user. How
can you expect a user to know the /conceptual/ difference between
double-clicking on a .jgp file and double-clicking on a .exe file? Yo
*do* agree that there's a conceptual difference, don't you?
>>Nearly all MUA's available in Windows will execute email-content
>>directly, possibly after issuing a security warning (remember
>>Happy99.exe or ExplorerZip.exe?). The only Unix MUA I know that does
>>this is dtmail.
>
>Don't forget about obscure little things like Netscape Communicator
>and Lotus Notes.
Netscape on Linux and Solaris (the ones I've worked with) does not
execute executable content directly (it /does/ recognize a few binary
types, but it can only pass them through the proper application (like a
shell), not spawn it directly). To be able to execute shell scripts
directly via Netscape, you need to edit its configuration.
I haven't seen a Unix version of Notes yet.
>>But the latter does demonstrate that it's not an OS problem, it's an
>>application problem.
>
>I think it's a philosophical issue. Should mailers provide an easy way
>to launch attachments, or shouldn't they?
***DATA*** attachments, yes. Executable content, NO. That's what
mime-types and mailcap files are for (they've been around since 1992,
according to the datestamp of RFC 1343).
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the
day they start making vacuum cleaners.
-- Ernst Jan Plugge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in a.s.r
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 19:35:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) wrote:
>>Now Microsoft Outlook offers you *auto-execution* of e-mail content
>>*without sanity checking*, and Erik Funkenbusch tells us that until
>>Linux offers this "user-friendlyness" it will never "play in the same
>>game" as Windows? (<mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) I think it's a
>>good thing not to "play the same game" as Windows. Not for the next
>>couple of decades.
>
>What purpose does it serve to propagate the lie about Outlook
>auto-executing e-mail attachments? I mean, what purpose other than the
>obvious FUD?
Let's clarify what I mean with "auto-execute". I mean that the
application you're using (the mailreader) will spawn the executable
content by itself, bypassing the shell in the process. I don't give a
flying hoot if warnings of potential danger are issued, it still
executes the content by itself. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
MIME has been commonplace in the Unix world for the last 8 years, and
uuencode/uudecode has been common in Unix many years before that. Still,
after all these years, it is not common for Unix MUAs to spawn
executables.
The OS that has about 6 times less experience with the Internet as Unix
has, /does/ have the spawning of executables via email as common
behaviour, and guess which OS is vulnerable to Email virii...
Applications that get untrusted data should not execute that data unless
the execution environment is properly constrained. Why aren't you
complaining that Java applets that you click on via the browser cannot
access system resources? It's the same thing.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it.
-- Donald Knuth
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 19:39:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I didn't, which is why I am still asking questions. Is the difference
>> between an image and a script obvious in preview mode or not? That
>> is, can you tell if 'open' is dangereous?
>
>Yes. Different icon, different file extension.
Oh. You mean, like ExplorerZip.exe with the WinZip icon and the .exe
attachment properly hidden?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Ummm, well, OK. The network's the network, the computer's the computer.
Sorry for the confusion.
-- Sun Microsystems
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:00:21 +0200
Francis Van Aeken wrote:
> Slashdot is down.
>
> They always have had their share of technical problems,
> which is quite embarrassing for a technology forum.
>
> Maybe they should reconsider their set-up and let go
> of the hobbyist software.
They're moving!
I didnt notice anything last i around 17:00 GMT and now 21:00 GMT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:58:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 16:42:00 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 11 May 2000 14:35:28 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Culleton
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 05:46:12 -0700
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>OK lets return to the original question. Is it possible to hurt
>>>a Linux system through a mail bomb type of attachment to email?
>>
>>One could in theory overload the partition containing the mail
>
>Disk quotas + a sane mta will prevent this.
Exactly; Linux (and Unix before it) can already defend against this
type of stupidity.
I wonder if Microsoft has similar quotas.
>
>--
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:10:25 +0200
abraxas wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8dn2rt$adr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> However, it is a rather poignant faux-paus. Linux is similar to the
> >> emporer's clothing =)
> >>
> >> You can see everything, but it still leaves you out in the cold =)
> >>
>
> Somehow it isnt surprising that you dont understand linux OR that
> story. :)
We analysed that story when i was in the 7th class.. about 14 years old.
How old is Chad?
But why not prove that you understand it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
Date: 11 May 2000 20:10:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:8dn2rt$adr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> However, it is a rather poignant faux-paus. Linux is similar to the
>> >> emporer's clothing =)
>> >>
>> >> You can see everything, but it still leaves you out in the cold =)
>> >>
>>
>> Somehow it isnt surprising that you dont understand linux OR that
>> story. :)
> We analysed that story when i was in the 7th class.. about 14 years old.
> How old is Chad?
I have no idea in the world.
> But why not prove that you understand it?
Because that would be helping Chad.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Mr Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:14:50 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> >
> > Why bother with email if you have to exchange the information some
> > other way first? I thought it was supposed to be making things
> > easier.
>
> That statment is tottally idiotic. We were talking about not opening
> and ATTACHEMENT until you knew what it was about,
And exactly what process is involved in knowing what an attachment is about
until one can open the attachment? Perhaps a good night's sleep will revel
the contents of the attachment, or perhaps rubbing a magic bottle, or perhaps
just staring at the attachment will revel its contents.
--
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: "ccghst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:15:33 -0400
Mike wrote in message ...
>I'm not sure what the problem is, but when I replied to Charlie's messages,
>I got no prepended '> ' on each line (the reason they showed up in my reply
>is that I put them there manually). I am using Outlook, but Charlie's
>messages are the _only_ ones I've ever responded to, in any newsgroup,
where
>my reply gets messed up.
I've noticed that in OE 4 when I reply to some HTML
post and also to some multipart/mime posts.
I know OE 4 has some issues with some (possibly
incorrect) multipart/mime posts. I've downloaded
a few binaries where I have to save the message,
rather than the attachment, clean the excess
crap from around the uuencoded or base64
encoded data, then decode it outside OE.
------------------------------
From: "ccghst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:22:18 -0400
JEDIDIAH wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 07 May 2000 15:51:09 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some things certainly SHOULD be hard.
They should have an appropriate level of difficulty
based on the actual need, danger of damage,
degree of possible damage, and an appropriate
understanding of how people will react to the
difficulties they confront.
> Cutting your fingers off with a consumer food processor
> should not be a trivial or common occurence.
True. But if it takes 10 minutes to close the lid,
people with either buy a food processor with
fewer safety features or have they buddy
who's good with tools disable the safety
feature.
Having managed restaurants in my youth, I can
tell you that people are ingenious at circumventing
even the best designed safety features if they
find them more inconvenient than they feel
necessary.
------------------------------
From: Mr Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:21:40 -0500
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
>
> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) wrote:
> >>Now Microsoft Outlook offers you *auto-execution* of e-mail content
> >>*without sanity checking*, and Erik Funkenbusch tells us that until
> >>Linux offers this "user-friendlyness" it will never "play in the same
> >>game" as Windows? (<mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) I think it's a
> >>good thing not to "play the same game" as Windows. Not for the next
> >>couple of decades.
> >
> >What purpose does it serve to propagate the lie about Outlook
> >auto-executing e-mail attachments? I mean, what purpose other than the
> >obvious FUD?
>
> Let's clarify what I mean with "auto-execute". I mean that the
> application you're using (the mailreader) will spawn the executable
> content by itself, bypassing the shell in the process. I don't give a
> flying hoot if warnings of potential danger are issued, it still
> executes the content by itself. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
>
Actually, an inline HTML document sent with ActiveX controls will
auto-execute in Outlook Express upon view. No clicking required.
--
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:41:11 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 11 May 2000 17:04:51 GMT...
...and JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, people dellude themselves by ignoring history. What was
> happening in Germany in the 1930's was not merely limited to
> Germany. The sorts of genocide and repression instituted by
> the German regime at that time were far from unique. They were
> just made more effective by applying the tools of an industrial
> age to the problem.
>
> The ghettos were around long before Germans started depopulating them.
>
> Germany was just a little bit more desperate than the rest of us.
Remember, however, that the ghettos that the SS set up in Warsaw and
Theresienstadt (to mention two), have little to do with the medieval
ghettos that existed in nearly every larger town up to the 19th
century and sometimes even later. E.g. the Prague ghetto ceased to be
a ghetto some year in the middle or late 1800s.
The SS "ghettos" were a sick, perverted and megalomanic caricature of
medieval ghettos, conceived to be murderous by the simple
circumstances of the lives of the people within.
mawa
--
Then I realized; you don't write poems when you're in Eden, you write
them later when you've left, and you can't find your way back.
-- poet John Rosenthal, speaking on NPR
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Window managers
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:37:42 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 11 May 2000 17:33:47 GMT...
...and Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > It was the Wed, 10 May 2000 14:05:34 GMT...
> > ...and Alberto Trillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi everyone. I've been thinking about KDE and GNOME and at
> > > how each other window manager is changing its code to make it
> > > GNOME and KDE hints compatible, and I've decided that I do
> > > not like that.
> >
> > [schnibble]
> >
> > Before we continue this thread, please tell me that you understand
> > that KDE and GNOME are not window managers.
> >
> Not they're not. But they both -have- window managers.
KDE has (ships) a window manager. GNOME has not got an official window
manager. Helix GNOME ships with Sawmill (soon to be Sawfish), though.
mawa
--
Then I realized; you don't write poems when you're in Eden, you write
them later when you've left, and you can't find your way back.
-- poet John Rosenthal, speaking on NPR
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 20:25:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
> On 9 May 2000 23:19:41 -0500, someone claiming to be Leslie Mikesell
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
> >>Well, since the situation under question does not involve the
running
> >>of any random bit of code, but instead an active decision on the
part
> >>of the user to run code instead of saving it as is the default, your
> >>point would be ... ?
>
> >The point is that the decision was ill-informed because the mailer
> >does not distinguish between viewing content and executing it.
> >How would it have been better to use the default 'save' and
> >then click on it later?
>
> I don't understand -- you prefer for the user not to have ability to
> run code at all?
>
Yes!
Having a predictable set of software such that you can have a
reasonable set of expectations on 'where they came from' is not
a farfetched thing to want.
Clearly scriptable applications have their uses, but why make
this gaping hole any idiot can exploit, such as with these
dumb email macros/vbs things? Executables, along with microsofts
flat root access with win9x is bad enough, but we _have_ to
use that due to the current monopoly. Hopefully, we'll have a
more competitive market in a bit.
2 cents.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:56:55 -0400
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fdbei$54u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:BBpS4.1190$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > As to your point, since Outlook always warns the user of potential
> > > malice, any confusion on the user's part is the user's fault.
> >
> > No I think some VBS viruses can set the warning back to the off state,
> thus
> > not asking first.
>
I trojan horse that was allow to run could.
Opening the door to the next thing, like a virus.
It's a good argument for not allowing one to turn off the confirmation
dialog, or somehow having the program sandboxed.
Jim
> Please explain how a .vbs virus will do this without first being run.
>
> > That shouldn't be optional really.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:02:37 -0400
John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <vuzF4.4558$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jim Ross"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >JOE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> What are the 10 things about Linux you wish you knew before
> you got a
> >> copy and started installing?
> >>
> >
> >These are in random order.
> >
> >1. That you can't pick and chose a few RPMs from redhat.com and
> expect it
> >to install on your computer.
> >
> >Jim Ross
> Of course not. Red Hat is not well-equipped for a modular
> install. But you can download the a and n series from the
> Slackware site and have a functioning system.
>
That's why I wish I knew that. RedHat hyped RPM format alot and I had no
clue about Linux.
They didn't specify that actually RPM benefits are to do with an already
running system.
I thought it applied to installation too.
Basically at the time also I didn't know about cheap Linux cd's like
cheapbyte and I had a 28.8 modem, not allowing me to download everything.
Even at RedHat 4.0, it was still damn large.
Jim
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
