Jason Bassford wrote:
Isn't have SOME security (even if it's not all that serious) better
than having NO security? Again, I'm not sure why there's an argument
against this on a theoretical level.
No SOME security is WORSE than NO security? Why? Because most users do
not understand
have icons set up on individual users desktops in my house with -P
switches to run their profile. Should password protected profiles be
implemented in Mozilla, I wouldn't actually use them. (There are much
better ways of implementing security, of which I am aware.) Which is,
perhaps, an ironic
Jason Bassford wrote:
However. I still argue for having them in place because I can
easily imagine situations where it COULD help somebody with what they
want. Just because *I* wouldn't use the feature is, AFAIK, not a very
good reason to say that it shouldn't be made part of the
On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 14:09:51 +0100, nospam@nospam wrote:
When my wife comes into the room and takes over the browser and wants
her own settings I have to lose my login sesion in the OS so she can
switch browser profiles, bit of an overkill dont you think?
You should try Windows XP. One of
Gervase Markham wrote:
There is a difference between the sort of security which keeps users from
snooping on one anothers' files (which has to be implemented at OS level,
or it won't work) and internal application security.
So why does the PSM prevent others from reading my NEW mail, but they
That's complete nonsense. PSM's primary function is SSL (https etc.) and
S/MIME. Password encryption is only a minor function that were added
only recently. (Does 4.x even have it?)
Then - why was password encryption added? Again, the argument
doesn't work. It makes no sense to argue
All the messages in this thread make one thing clear: (1) the
programmers are mostly against it. (2) The user are mostly for it.
1) is because when it becomes apparent that it's a terribly-insecure hacky
feature, it's the programmers who take the flak.
You can't conclude 2), because users
Gervase Markham wrote:
All the messages in this thread make one thing clear: (1) the
programmers are mostly against it. (2) The user are mostly for it.
1) is because when it becomes apparent that it's a terribly-insecure hacky
feature, it's the programmers who take the flak.
see my
Gervase Markham wrote:
Are you volunteering to tell us all what to do? :-)
If you'll listen ;)
No. Will you now stop telling us all what to do? :-)
NO, that is my job as a bug reporter ;)
There is a difference between the sort of security which keeps users from
snooping on one
H.H.Cahit Oz wrote:
Jeandré wrote:
User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords.
If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
fixed here:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
I think to vote for this bug is stupid... If you are
ravi narayan wrote:
and i think its silly to call it stupid. it may not be worth the
time of the mozilla development team, but a good argument can be
made for the validity of the request. such protection as requested
in the bug might indeed be an OS function, but since the most
common OS
and i think its silly to call it stupid. it may not be worth the
provide but which mozilla works around to provide. if you wish to
use mozilla, use NT or Linux is a meagre response, imho.
I agree with you on this one. It seems slightly hypocritical
and/or confused to me that the Mozilla
The feature being requested is not a security measure, it is security
snake oil. This is precisely the sort of misfeature that, when broken,
causes a lot of bad press for a product.
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Martijn Kluijtmans wrote:
I just vote for it.
Think of the following situation:
In a family, every member wants to use Mozilla's, mail facilities
- Father gets confidential information from clients
- Daughter gets love letters by her friend
- Mother
enz.
Yes, we had this discussion
Martijn Kluijtmans wrote:
And of course they don't want anybody to read their e-mail
Seems to me that when encryption is turned on in password prefs, a
password is required before you can access mail. Or doesn't it work like
this any more?
Jeandré wrote:
User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords.
If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
fixed here:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
[...]
Its more a candidate for a distributor to implement it doesn't fit
User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords.
If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
fixed here:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
Even better, if you have the knowledge (unfortunately, I can't program)
and interest, maybe you could
Peter Lairo wrote:
User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords.
If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
fixed here:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
Where do I vote for this bug getting WONTFIX? :-)
Ben Bucksch wrote:
Peter Lairo wrote:
User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords.
If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
fixed here:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
Where do I vote for this bug getting WONTFIX? :-)
I just vote for it.
Think of the following situation:
In a family, every member wants to use Mozilla's, mail facilities
- Father gets confidential information from clients
- Daughter gets love letters by her friend
- Mother
enz.
And of course they don't want anybody to read their e-mail, so
User Profiles should be able to be protected with passwords.
If you agree with the above statement, please vote for this BUG to be
fixed here:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
[...]
Its more a candidate for a distributor to implement it doesn't fit
with Mozilla's general
Peter Lairo wrote:
Ben Bucksch wrote:
I think, many of those "brothers" are able to get beyond such a simple
"security" protection.
You're wrong. You obviously have little contact with "regular" people.
Got me. I was born that smart, so I never went to school.
win2k
is too expensive
22 matches
Mail list logo
