Hello! Saturday, May 13, 2000, 17:03, Allie Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AM> A download URL for application distribution is just as convenient. AM> A small magazine is fine by e-mail. Are you saying you'd prefer if Ritlabs AM> e-mailed the new betas to you? Fully agreed with Allie Martin here I should add my own thoughts about the $Subj. There are so many security publications on the Net and also in offline world saying something similar to "never open attachments from untrusted sources; never open attachments even if you see the known From: field in e-mail message - first you should check the attached file with the latest version of your antivirus" so a particular user should think twice or more before opening an attachments. However it's not so simple - and we all were able to see what can happen if this very basic security guideline was ignored by _that_ pesky users :-) - remember ILoveYou worm, yes? So if we are talking about "binaries in e-mail - to send or not to send, this is question" please don't forget about some psychological issues here. This is IMHO the first factor. Someone can point me to a program like PGP, GNU PG etc. Yes, this is a perfect solution but in some posting back there was an excellent phrase by Oliver Sturm - "Alternatively, they'd have to go learn how to use other internet services, which they won't". The key word is ---------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. This is a second factor - a man's lazyness. I couldn't remember a (known) software vendor which distributes a new versions of its products, patches etc. by e-mail. Usually they send a message to a registered users providing some information about the new releases and possibly include a URL to a (secured) download site. However you *can* receive a binary code from this vendors *but* the most applicable case for it will be if you are communicating with tecnhical support about some issue specific to your system. This is a 3rd factor - an industrial practice. -- Best regards, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) http://www.andris.msk.ru/ -- -------------------------------------------------------------- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Why is "thebat.exe" from tb142f.zip so big?
Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) Sat, 13 May 2000 14:47:00 -0700
- Re: Why is "thebat.exe" from tb14... SyP
- Re: Why is "thebat.exe" from... Steve Lamb
- Re[2]: Why is "thebat.exe&quo... SyP
- Re: Why is "thebat.exe&qu... Steve Lamb
- Re[2]: Why is "thebat... Oliver Sturm
- Re: Why is "theb... Steve Lamb
- Re[2]: Why is &qu... Oliver Sturm
- Re: Why is "... Allie Martin
- Re: Why is "... Jast
- Re: Why is "... Allie Martin
- SOT: attachments ... Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris)
- SOT: attachments ... Jast
- Re: SOT: attachme... Allie Martin
- Re[2]: Why is &qu... Oliver Sturm
- Re: Why is "... Allie Martin
- Re[2]: Why is &qu... Oliver Sturm
- Re: Why is "... Tom Plunket
- Re: Why is "... Steve Lamb
- Re: Why is "thebat.ex... Tom Plunket
- Re[2]: Why is "t... SyP
- Re: Why is "theb... Steve Lamb