Stuart, you are my hero ;-)
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 n
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 no
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
"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 snoopi
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. L
