"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
> At 13:20 15/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote:
> >Braden McDaniel wrote:
> ><delenda est...>
>
> > > You want a placebo and Conrad thinks it's a bad idea. I agree with him.
> > > If someone does create a patch that does as you describe, I hope
> > > mozilla.org has the sense to reject it, regardless of how many naive
> > > votes you manage to drum up.
> > >
> > > Braden
> >
> >A placebo that prevents 99% of unintentional or novice snooping is not a
> >placebo at all - it is a useful feature.
> >
> >I would like to know what benefit you have by obstructing this "optional"
> >feature. Nobody is forced to use it, and those that would choose to use it
> >could be presented with a warning message before activating the feature.
> >Why are you so adament about hindering those that want this feature?
>
> Personally I think its a less than optimal solution. Permission management
> of files belongs in the underlying operating system and providing a
> password which doesn't actually do anything is worse than not providing
> one at all.
>
> Simon
It is an optimal solution if you define optimal to be the best possible cost
versus benefit. Most users use win9x which has virtually NO "Permission
management". Anyhow, the password would be far from not doing "anything". 99%
of unintentional or novice snooping is highly significant.
Since most office computers are ON all day, it would be nice to at least have
the OPTION to "manage" my risk. Also, at home, I don't want to necessarly
protect my entire PC (i usually turn it on and walk away and do other things;
when i return, I want it to be booted COMPLETELY - and not have to enter a
password and wait AGAIN until the login finishes).
Please vote for this bug at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
