Re: Password protected profiles -- patch ready, but ignored by owner :(
Christian Biesinger wrote: Peter Lairo wrote: I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :( Could you explain why it is? I see it this way: The PW protection is of course worthless. Anybody really wanting to access your profile data can still do so. And the others don't care about your profile anyway, so PW protection doesn't change anything. And I don't see why this is windows specific... Windows can also be configured to require a password to logon. I know a couple that the wife wants a feature like this to lock out her husband from her email browser stuff even on a windows multi-user platform like WME. -dman84
Re: Password protected profiles -- Sabatage from within?
Sid Vicious wrote: Peter Lairo wrote: dman84 wrote: its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless someone has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner.. I thought there was a patch ready and waiting for this. I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :( Wow, I never thought of this. If you *don't* want a bug fixed, just take ownership of it, profess a patch is near, and then just let it die on the vine. Brilliant!! Yep, that's just how they did the remove netscape. deal. Though I'd say sleazy is a better description than brilliant.
Re: Password protected profiles -- patch ready, but ignored by owner:(
dman84 wrote: its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless someone has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner.. I thought there was a patch ready and waiting for this. I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :( -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Password protected profiles -- patch ready, but ignored by owner :(
Peter Lairo wrote: I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :( Could you explain why it is? I see it this way: The PW protection is of course worthless. Anybody really wanting to access your profile data can still do so. And the others don't care about your profile anyway, so PW protection doesn't change anything. And I don't see why this is windows specific... Windows can also be configured to require a password to logon. -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Password protected profiles -- patch ready, but ignored by owner :(
Christian Biesinger wrote: Could you explain why it is? I (and *many* others) already have exhautively and repeatedly explained why a PW makes sense for many users. Go see the relevant posts here and bugs if you are truly interested in seeing why your oppinion is erroneous, one-sided, and deliberately misleading. -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Password protected profiles -- Sabatage from within?
Peter Lairo wrote: dman84 wrote: its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless someone has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner.. I thought there was a patch ready and waiting for this. I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :( Wow, I never thought of this. If you *don't* want a bug fixed, just take ownership of it, profess a patch is near, and then just let it die on the vine. Brilliant!! -- sid
Re: Password protected profiles -- patch ready, but ignored by owner :(
Christian Biesinger wrote: Peter Lairo wrote: I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :( Could you explain why it is? I see it this way: The PW protection is of course worthless. Anybody really wanting to access your profile data can still do so. And the others don't care about your profile anyway, so PW protection doesn't change anything. And I don't see why this is windows specific... Windows can also be configured to require a password to logon. You guys all spew the same line of arrogant fodder. The *users* have spoken here. Just because you *personally* have no use for this, it's totally worthless? Go ahead and put another nail in Mozilla's coffin. -- sid
Re: Password protected profiles -- patch ready, but ignored by owner :(
And it came to pass that Sid Vicious wrote:
Christian Biesinger wrote:
Peter Lairo wrote:
I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the
Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it
is important to windows users. :(
Could you explain why it is?
I see it this way: The PW protection is of course
worthless. Anybody really wanting to access your profile
data can still do so. And the others don't care about your
profile anyway, so PW protection doesn't change anything.
And I don't see why this is windows specific... Windows can
also be configured to require a password to logon.
You guys all spew the same line of arrogant fodder. The
*users* have spoken here. Just because you *personally*
have no use for this, it's totally worthless? Go ahead and
put another nail in Mozilla's coffin.
They continually fail to get the point; it's not about security.
People don't want a password for security; they simply want the
user to know which profile they've selected.
Mozilla/N6's drop down menu is simply inadequate for the home
user. It's too easy to simply click and go into someone else's
profile, and wonder what the heck happened to all your
bookmarks, and why is it set back to THIS skin?
Few, if any, home Windows users set up different windows
profiles. It's not a consideration, as most of the programs
they use don't require seperate user settings. The average home
user doesn't need a seperate Word profile, or a different
Calender Creator profile. Most home users are not even aware
that they CAN or SHOULD set up different Windows users.
And the programs that they DO need different user profiles for
have them built in: Communicator, AOL, Eudora, Quicken, Pegasus;
all have made provisions within the program itself to help users
access the data they need without accessing the data they don't.
Mozilla/Netscape 6 will NEVER gain widespread acceptance if it
does not provide the functions that users have come to expect;
and that's how it is.
So quit arguing and make it work all ready.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Remember, we have to get the baby out of the oven today.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: Password protected profiles
dman84 wrote: Sid Vicious wrote: Anyone know the 'real' status of this bug? It's almost a year and a half old and seems to just be floundering http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489 its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless someone has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner.. -dman84 Yeah, I suppose getting Moz to function with what it has would be the first priority... -- sid
Password protected profiles
Anyone know the 'real' status of this bug? It's almost a year and a half old and seems to just be floundering http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489 -- sid
Re: Password protected profiles
Sid Vicious wrote: Anyone know the 'real' status of this bug? It's almost a year and a half old and seems to just be floundering http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489 its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless someone has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner.. -dman84
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You knowyouwant this feature!
At 18:47 18/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: you guys just don't get it. Nobody is asking for some all inclusive security system. What is merely requested is a simple and convenient way to "hinder" casual, I don't think anyone is under the misapprehension that you're suggesting all inclusive security. I think that it is the illusion of security that is the problem. accidental peeping into ones e-mail. This is similar to password protecting an excel file or wordperfect document. Simple. And non-effective. If you use a password to gain access to your email using Mozilla how does this stop searches for text in all files by anyone? It is entirely non-functional except when running Mozilla. Now you can say, 'Oh but that's good enough' and it may well be for you. But for the currently 2 million other users, rising to a billion, will it be? Or will the extremely public knowledge of 'Oh you can password protect things in Mozilla, but you can just read the files normally anyway. Hey if you want to search all the email on your machine just hit F3.', damage the reputation of the product as a whole and call into question the integrity in other areas? It is this latter view that concerns people. The utility of protecting files from different users isn't doubted, this just isn't the way to do it. Simon
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! Youknowyouwant this feature!
OK, most people use Win9x. If one were to set up multiple user profiles in Win9x, would: a) Mozilla install its user files to that users directory? b) would that directory be in any way protected from view by persons logging in under another Win9x profile? If either answer is NO, then Mozilla should consider implementing a profile password to add even a minor layer of security to ones mail privacy, since if Win9x doesn't encrypt or hide users' info from others, most people wouldn't bother to use it. If either answer is NO, then why are so many people using Win9x.? According to your logic, this would "damage the reputation of the product (Win9x) as a whole and call into question the integrity in other areas"? Then why are so many people using Win9x? Despite why you or I may think about M$ and it's flawed OS, this is the reality. Obviously, people are making their usage habits (Win9x IE) based primarily on convenience and not technically optimized criteria (or most people would be using Win NT or Linux for security, but they mostly use Win9x - makes one think, doesn't it). Mozilla must think very hard when deciding between what users want and what is technically optimal. Mozilla must make this important compromise. "Simon P. Lucy" wrote: At 18:47 18/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: you guys just don't get it. Nobody is asking for some all inclusive security system. What is merely requested is a simple and convenient way to "hinder" casual, I don't think anyone is under the misapprehension that you're suggesting all inclusive security. I think that it is the illusion of security that is the problem. accidental peeping into ones e-mail. This is similar to password protecting an excel file or wordperfect document. Simple. And non-effective. If you use a password to gain access to your email using Mozilla how does this stop searches for text in all files by anyone? It is entirely non-functional except when running Mozilla. Now you can say, 'Oh but that's good enough' and it may well be for you. But for the currently 2 million other users, rising to a billion, will it be? Or will the extremely public knowledge of 'Oh you can password protect things in Mozilla, but you can just read the files normally anyway. Hey if you want to search all the email on your machine just hit F3.', damage the reputation of the product as a whole and call into question the integrity in other areas? It is this latter view that concerns people. The utility of protecting files from different users isn't doubted, this just isn't the way to do it. Simon -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You knowyouwant this feature!
At 13:44 18/12/2000 -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote: "Simon P. Lucy" wrote: 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. Hmm. Its not best possible cost because it fixes the wrong problem. Providing a non-functional passwording system on a more secure operating system would simply irritate the users of those systems. Hmm. I do see your point, but on the other hand, we have *already* irritated such people more than enough by providing the non-functional "profile" system in the first place on systems (*nix and to a lesser extent Win2k) that already have much more sophisticated ways to deal with multiple users. In that situation, support for multiple mail accounts removed the only possible reason anyone might have wanted profiles on *nix... we have them anyway. And yes, as a user of such a system, I *do* find it irritating (although, I have to admit, Moz does a good job of making the unnecessary profiles functionality invisible and unobtrusive). Clearly, not irritating users of "real" operating systems wasn't a high design priority :) This feature can be implemented with a *reduction* in irritation to everyone, by turning profiles off altogether for sufficiently advanced OSs. Agreed that there is a lot of grief associated with profiles and perhaps they are better off not existing at the moment. However, some mechanism of differentiating one mode of use or the defaults for a particular user is still going to be needed, let alone persistence attributes. So, you might have a slimmed down 'profile' but you'll still need the same information. There are all sorts of mechanisms that allow that on both secure and non secure operating systems. A screen saver with a password is only one. Leaving a machine on without some kind of control would just avoid any security anyway. It would take a lot longer to open a browser and enter a password for the profile than it would to enter a password on a screen saver or keyboard lock. Up until recently, I lived in a home with children and a single family computer. I also know several people who do so. In all these situations that I know of, I am the only person who would have the first clue where to look for profile data if I wanted to break this "security". The others range from "uh, what's a file?" to fully capable of figuring out and using most applications, and even doing simple HTML authoring. For the large proportion of households that don't contain an advanced computer user or script kiddie (I don't consider script kiddies advanced :) ) the mere existence of a password would be more than enough protection. We're talking about the "sister doesn't want annoying younger brother reading her email to her girlfriends about boys" kind of security. The sort of security provided by those journals that come with locks that I could pull apart with my bare hands if I really wanted to. The sort of security that is *all most home users really need*. Advanced users, of course, know that this security is inadequate for them. But advanced users also know how to get better security, so it doesn't *matter*. All that would be fine if the password achieved anything outside of Mozilla, but it doesn't. No one needs to know where the profile data is, it can be found accidentally or otherwise just by pressing F3 and indicating the entire machine to search. There are then two alternatives, not worry about very insecure operating systems, or bring all of the data into the application domain. No clear text files. I don't have a particular problem with the latter until someone complains that they can't read their own data any more because of a bug. You can, of course, apply PGPDisk so that it is encrypted outside of the application but I think that's a solution too sophisticated for the people who need the protection. Simon
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! Youknowyouwant this feature!
At 09:58 19/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: OK, most people use Win9x. If one were to set up multiple user profiles in Win9x, would: a) Mozilla install its user files to that users directory? It should do, if it doesn't that's a bug. b) would that directory be in any way protected from view by persons logging in under another Win9x profile? Check http://msdn.microsoft.com/training/options/FREE/VBSOL/Topics/winvbvc00198.htm this says that My Documents should be used to store User created data. As its a virtual path set up at the time of login then it is certainly true that only the logged in user would see their own data in My Documents. However, I'm not aware of anything in 9x or Me that implements permissions to lock out other profiles from being physically searched. This is slightly better than just using a password in Mozilla, but suffers the same drawback. If either answer is NO, then Mozilla should consider implementing a profile password to add even a minor layer of security to ones mail privacy, since if Win9x doesn't encrypt or hide users' info from others, most people wouldn't bother to use it. If either answer is NO, then why are so many people using Win9x.? According to your logic, this would "damage the reputation of the product (Win9x) as a whole and call into question the integrity in other areas"? Then why are so many people using Win9x? Despite why you or I may think about M$ and it's flawed OS, this is the reality. Obviously, people are making their usage habits (Win9x IE) based primarily on convenience and not technically optimized criteria (or most people would be using Win NT or Linux for security, but they mostly use Win9x - makes one think, doesn't it). Mozilla must think very hard when deciding between what users want and what is technically optimal. Mozilla must make this important compromise. I'd imagine that many people given the choice would want a more secure operating system than 9x or Me, most people don't get the choice though. Their operating system is bundled with their hardware, and if not the home user is generally told that 9x is their ideal operating system and that Win 2K etc is a corporate user's operating system. That this is now generally false is a pity but there's not a lot can be done about that until MS produce their unified OS, and even then they will have a smaller Home User O/S still dependant on DOS, because their marketeers believe anything else would be too difficult. This isn't to inculcate any OS platform war, I really couldn't care less what platform is used. Simon
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! Youknowyouwantthis feature!
At 14:01 19/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:12 19/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: "Simon P. Lucy" wrote: This is slightly better than just using a password in Mozilla, but suffers the same drawback. My point EXACTLY (the SAME drawback). Actually Mozilla is worse, because in Win9x the user doesn't "see" the other's My Documents folder, whereas in Mozilla, you see the list of other users' profiles EVERY time you load Mozilla (Profile Manager) Well I wouldn't leap about too much, why is seeing the existence of other profiles a Good or a Bad thing? Its also not clear to me that Users == Profiles I can see a variety of circumstances where an individual user would want different profiles simultaneously. Remember, the isse is the "casual" user. These represent the VAST majority of users. Seeing others' profiles is an invitation to snoop. Then I'm really confused. How is having a password which doesn't stop access improve things then? And don't know that the vast majority of users will share their machines with other people, somehow I doubt it. I think you are clutching at straws. Well, I think you are being deliberately stubborn :-) Nope, nohow, stubbornness is just natural. I'd imagine that many people given the choice would want a more secure operating system than 9x or Me, most people don't get the choice though. Their operating system is bundled with their hardware, and if not the home user is generally told that 9x is their ideal operating system and that Win 2K etc is a corporate user's operating system. That this is now generally false is a pity but there's not a lot can be done about that until MS produce their unified OS, and even then they will have a smaller Home User O/S still dependant on DOS, because their marketeers believe anything else would be too difficult. Don't waver now. The fact remains that most people use Win9x! I buy my own components and assemble them. I still choose Win9x because it is A) much cheaper than WinNT, B) compatible with more software, C) easier to use/configure, D) supports games, etc etc But have you done any of those things in Win2K? If security is important to you use an operating system that provides it, it it isn't either live with the consequences or fix it generally. You can't expect an application to fix file system security. Are you deliberately not responding to what I said. My first point (A) was price. Win2k is much more expensive. Also, the "level of security" is a main issue if my arguments, so I don't need (or want) to use Win2k. Not at all, it isn't 'much more expensive' its around $100 more than from 98/Me, if security is important to someone then the perceived price drops. If security isn't important then I don't understand why you care. Since you obviously do care you must want something else and that something else is I think your pet solution and no other. I'm sure most people make a conscious choice to use Win9x for those or similar reasons. This is the reality. Mozilla should accept it (and the resulting consequences) and implement password protected profiles. Oh bollocks :-) People make no choice at all for the most part in which operating system they use. There's only one cross platform solution and that is to optionally encrypt profile data including email. There will be a performance penalty. Adding passwords to profiles in Mozilla doesn't increase the security of those profiles one iota unless those files themselves are secured by that password. Again, yoour missing the point. Nobody ever mentioned anything about encrypting profile data, that would be nice, but not needed by the "casual" user. Also the prformance hit (encryption) should be optional (if implemented). I hope they do add optional encryption, because that increases the odds that I will be able to turn encryption OFF, while keeping profile password enabled ;-) Lots of people have mentioned encrypting the profile files. As I don't think you will get profile passwords implemented in anything its a moot point as to whether you can enable them or not. Simon
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You know youwant this feature!
Braden McDaniel wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Peter Lairo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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". But I'm fairly certain you can get utilities that are designed to alleviate that shortcoming. Mozilla, though, is designed to be an Internet application suite. Let's put it this way, outlook has password protected profiles and is the most widely used mail prog. People seem to be happy with this solution and don't seem to mind the "imperfect" protection!!! Since most office computers are ON all day, it would be nice to at least have the OPTION to "manage" my risk. It is not the mission of Mozilla to give you *all* of the available options of things you can do with a computer. The option you want is something that I think falls outside its domain, and that I seriously doubt it could do well. I capped OPTION, because someone was objecting to being FORCED to use an "imperfect" protection!!! 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). I see. You want Mozilla to have a login screen because your computer/OS login is too slow. NO, i capped "AGAIN", not "wait"!!! Braden Please make at least an effort to read a post before regergitating your preconceived opinons. -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You knowyouwant this feature!
you guys just don't get it. Nobody is asking for some all inclusive security system. What is merely requested is a simple and convenient way to "hinder" casual, accidental peeping into ones e-mail. This is similar to password protecting an excel file or wordperfect document. Simple. "Simon P. Lucy" wrote: At 18:12 18/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: Braden McDaniel wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Peter Lairo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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". But I'm fairly certain you can get utilities that are designed to alleviate that shortcoming. Mozilla, though, is designed to be an Internet application suite. Let's put it this way, outlook has password protected profiles and is the most widely used mail prog. People seem to be happy with this solution and don't seem to mind the "imperfect" protection!!! Other people's bad decisions are rarely grounds for repeating the same mistake. Since most office computers are ON all day, it would be nice to at least have the OPTION to "manage" my risk. It is not the mission of Mozilla to give you *all* of the available options of things you can do with a computer. The option you want is something that I think falls outside its domain, and that I seriously doubt it could do well. I capped OPTION, because someone was objecting to being FORCED to use an "imperfect" protection!!! I think the main objection is that it is an option that Mozilla isn't going to support, because at base its a broken option. The assumption is that the application should provide file permissions when the underlying operating system doesn't. That is outside Mozilla's domain. 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). I see. You want Mozilla to have a login screen because your computer/OS login is too slow. NO, i capped "AGAIN", not "wait"!!! How does a keyboard lock or screen saver not do that? If you walk away from a machine which is running and logged in without any protection, regardless of the circumstances of the environment, if anyone happens to see information that you don't want them to that's really your problem not the application's, or even the operating system, unless and until you install retinal verification. Simon Braden Please make at least an effort to read a post before regergitating your preconceived opinons. -- Regards, Peter Lairo -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You knowyouwant this feature!
"Simon P. Lucy" wrote: 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. Hmm. Its not best possible cost because it fixes the wrong problem. Providing a non-functional passwording system on a more secure operating system would simply irritate the users of those systems. Hmm. I do see your point, but on the other hand, we have *already* irritated such people more than enough by providing the non-functional "profile" system in the first place on systems (*nix and to a lesser extent Win2k) that already have much more sophisticated ways to deal with multiple users. In that situation, support for multiple mail accounts removed the only possible reason anyone might have wanted profiles on *nix... we have them anyway. And yes, as a user of such a system, I *do* find it irritating (although, I have to admit, Moz does a good job of making the unnecessary profiles functionality invisible and unobtrusive). Clearly, not irritating users of "real" operating systems wasn't a high design priority :) This feature can be implemented with a *reduction* in irritation to everyone, by turning profiles off altogether for sufficiently advanced OSs. There are all sorts of mechanisms that allow that on both secure and non secure operating systems. A screen saver with a password is only one. Leaving a machine on without some kind of control would just avoid any security anyway. It would take a lot longer to open a browser and enter a password for the profile than it would to enter a password on a screen saver or keyboard lock. Up until recently, I lived in a home with children and a single family computer. I also know several people who do so. In all these situations that I know of, I am the only person who would have the first clue where to look for profile data if I wanted to break this "security". The others range from "uh, what's a file?" to fully capable of figuring out and using most applications, and even doing simple HTML authoring. For the large proportion of households that don't contain an advanced computer user or script kiddie (I don't consider script kiddies advanced :) ) the mere existence of a password would be more than enough protection. We're talking about the "sister doesn't want annoying younger brother reading her email to her girlfriends about boys" kind of security. The sort of security provided by those journals that come with locks that I could pull apart with my bare hands if I really wanted to. The sort of security that is *all most home users really need*. Advanced users, of course, know that this security is inadequate for them. But advanced users also know how to get better security, so it doesn't *matter*. Stuart.
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You know youwant this feature!
Peter Lairo wrote: 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. As I mentioned in the bug, Win95/98/Me *can* secure files by using something like PGP Disk. I'd trust this approach a lot more than to protect the profile with some half-baked glass-door security policy as the bug report suggests. Practically every other platform can protect the profile with file permissions so there should be no issue there assuming the admin knows what they're doing. -- Adam Lock - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You know you want thisfeature!
no it doesn't set them up for lawsuits and it doesn't instruct snoopers where to go. A standard warning message (as it already existed in NC4.5) aleady exists which (A) informs that the password is NOT SECURE and (B) does NOT tell snoopers where the profiles are located. see here for the existing warning message: http://home.netscape.com/communicator/v4.5/passwords/index.html Daniel Veditz wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've also reported this bug to Netscape because I want this in Netscape 6 too... I'd be willing to bet that even if mozilla implemented this feature Netscape might turn it off in their version. Without real security something that *looks* like it keeps others out is just setting Netscape up for a bogus lawsuit when some disgruntled person discovers someone else reading mail he thought was secret. If we make it clear the password doesn't protect anything then that's practically instructing snoopers where to go. -Dan Veditz -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You know you wantthisfeature!
Tom, thanks for your support. BTW, have you voted for this bug yet. If not, here is the link: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489 PS. when you are replying to a thread, please select REPLY in your browser so your messages are not disjointed from the original message. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was able to turn this feature on in Netscape 4.x by going to a Netscape web site and running a Java applet (or something) that enabled the password protected profiles. The process was NOT very convenient so I guess Netscape doesn't really want advocate doing this. I just thought since it worked in Netscape 4.x that it should work in Netscape 6. I share my PC at home with someone and I DO use this feature to keep my e-mail and Netscape settings separate from hers and I find it works rather well (again in Netscape 4.x). Well see what they do with the bug report... By the way are any of the bugs reported to Netscape being fixed in the Mozilla code tree or are only bugs reported via Mozilla fixed in the Mozilla code tree? Peace. Tom Daniel Veditz [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/14/2000 05:10:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You know you want thisfeature! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've also reported this bug to Netscape because I want this in Netscape 6 too... I'd be willing to bet that even if mozilla implemented this feature Netscape might turn it off in their version. Without real security something that *looks* like it keeps others out is just setting Netscape up for a bogus lawsuit when some disgruntled person discovers someone else reading mail he thought was secret. If we make it clear the password doesn't protect anything then that's practically instructing snoopers where to go. -Dan Veditz -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You know youwant this feature!
Simon P. Lucy wrote: Please vote for this bug at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489 A, but not all the votes are counted ;-) Yes, but I strongly suspect that they are mechanically counted. We should call the supreme court to see if we can manually count them. SCNR, Seb
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You know you want thisfeature!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've also reported this bug to Netscape because I want this in Netscape 6 too... I'd be willing to bet that even if mozilla implemented this feature Netscape might turn it off in their version. Without real security something that *looks* like it keeps others out is just setting Netscape up for a bogus lawsuit when some disgruntled person discovers someone else reading mail he thought was secret. If we make it clear the password doesn't protect anything then that's practically instructing snoopers where to go. -Dan Veditz
