> Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I've been thinking of a scheme in which attachments of certain
> > "dangerous" types get mangled, such that the filenames or types
> > are intentionally misdeclared. So the user ends up with a plain
> > base64 text file, which is meaningless, but which he can trivially
> > decode to the original.
>
> > This places the burden of vigilance back on the user where it
> > belongs, rather than breeding a generation of click-happy users.
>
> > And if he does decode and run it, and it is a virus, you can point a
> > very accusing finger instead of a palms-up shrug.
>
> While this sounds good, it does not solve the problem.
> This is about shifting the blame, not solving the problem, which is that
> users run insecure operating systems.
>
> As long as people run Windows, there will be a virus and trojan problem.
>
> I find it astonishing that people don't sue Microsoft for this.
> A whole industry thrives on Microsoft's bad code quality.
People will allways use Windows, no matter what the sysadmins say. The
"lusers" want buttons, F1 and plug'n'play.
The problem is not the OS security - most of the times there is no choise.
The man askes for an antivirus softwere, not for compare between OSes.
