donut <none@none.com> wrote in
news:Xns93A4122C2186Cdonut@216.102.43.227:

> "dkg_ctc" <dontknowguilt@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns93A3D5B27134dkgctc@130.133.1.4:
>
>> yosponge@yahoo.com (sponge) wrote in
>> news:8d76ec03.0306231433.2725af4b@posting.google.c om:
>>
>> *snip*
>>> Look, after re-reading your posts, it's plain to see that you
>>> don't know the first thing about security.
>>
>> Oh, good, you've saved me the effort of having to read the rest
>> of your post...after all, it's safe to assume that if I do, it'll
>> just be more talking down.
>>
>> Thanks for preventing me from wasting any further time with you.
>>
>
> I am no programming guru, but from personal experience, I know
> what's secure and what isn't.
>
> Microsoft Internet Explorer and Outlook Express are not secure.
> They can issue updates into eternity, but they are still trying to
> patch that Rambler frame which was a rust bucket the day it rolled
> off the line.
>
> Sorry for the trailer park metaphor, but it seems very
> appropriate.
>
> sponge, certain NGs are being targeted by M$ trolls, specifically
> this one and the Linux ones. The best thing you can do is simply
> ignore.
>
> M$ will introduce Longhorn and Palladium, and both will become
> fertile new playgrounds for the crackers and script kiddies.
>

The insecurity of IE 5.5 is such that Microsoft has said that they
can’t and will not try to remedy it. Future patches for IE 5.5 will not
be made available. I would strongly recommend that you upgrade to IE
6.0 & OE 6.0. Yes, patches on patches unto eternity. Microsoft security
is deplorable. None the less, this is the best available solution.


--
James E. Morrow
Email to: jamesemorrow@email.com