Spybot Search and Destroy ??

[null@zilch.com]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:42:51 GMT, "YK" <YKnot@home.invalid> wrote:

>null@zilch.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:47:19 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
>> <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Get this through your head: There is *never* a valid reason to use
>>> MSIE for anything other than to immediately download a replacement
>>> browser.
>>
>> M$ may not allow you to download OS security patches without IE. So
>> there are two valid reasons to use IE before you eradicate it.
>
>Third reason: You have to figure out if you need the update and the
>sequence to install the updates yourself.
>
>> I guess XP users are out of luck, though, since IEradicator isn't
>specified to
>> work with it.
>
>I would call that lucky.

If you use XP you're going to need a lot of that And some pity.

>> OTOH, there are absolutely _no_ valid reasons for using OE or Outlook.
>
>There are two valid reasons. 1. I hate Forte Agent. 2. I like OE.

Likes and dislikes don't have anything to do with security and are
thus invalid/irrelevant. Besides, you tend to like what you get
accustomed to anyway. Getting accustomed to far more secure apps isn't
all that difficult.

>OE locked down to read only text messages and only run in the Restricted
>Zone which is turned on by default by latest OE updates.
>It even automatically locks down opening attachements.

That's nice. I've been using Pegasus all through the years of agony
suffering of OE and Outlook users getting hit with exploits and I can
can only pity them.

Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:46:14 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.com> wrote:
>
> "Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> message news:9tlgjv8kgj9l65j6hs7sm6sgdojg20hiep@news.rcn.c om...
[farkled attributions fixed]
>
> > Get this through your head: There is *never* a valid reason to use
> > MSIE for anything other than to immediately download a replacement
> > browser.
>
> Of course there is. Perhaps you are using your employer's machine and he
> does not care to have any software other than that he specifically
> approves installed to the machine.
[snip]

So your contention is that stupidity and/or ignorance (the employer's, in
this particular case) constitute a "valid" reason to do something?

> Perhaps one does not wish to muck around with an
> OS that is already problematic.
[snip]

There you go with the FUD again.

FYI: One of *the* biggest reasons most semi-recent versions of Windows are
"problematic" as delivered is the presence of MSIE/OE/etc. -- which, BTW are
*NOT* "part of the OS", no matter how loudly or repeatedly MS might tell
lies to that effect.

In short: You're confusing the disease with the cure.

> Perhaps one does not LIKE Opera or Mozilla.
[snip]

You like virii, worms, trojans, spyware, abusive marketing, and usurpation
of your rights *better*?

Please... This one isn't even plausible.

> Perhaps one has once or twice been burned in a big way by installing
> Opera or Netscape and refuses to repeat the experience.
[snip]

And how many times must you be "burned" by MSIE before you wake up and
"refuse to repeat the experience"? 10? 100? 1,000?

Besides, even if you've got a bug up your tail about Opera and/or Netscape
in particular, there are still many other alternatives.

> Perhaps one likes IE -
> some do you know.
[snip]

I'm sure Steve Balmer, Hilary Rosen, Cary Sherman and Jack Valenti (to name
a few) just love it -- especially on *your* system.

That *should* give you pause.

> Perhaps one is simply unaware or couldn't care less that
> anything else might be available.
[snip]

Back to "stupidity/ignorance is a virtue", eh?

> All of those are valid reasons to
> continue to use IE even if Your Highness does not approve.
>
[snip]

Well, let's see... If, by your lights, stupidity and willing foolishness
are "valid reasons" to do something, just *what* would you consider to be an
INvalid reason?

> When are you going to get down off your high horse and acknowledge that
> the 95% of the universe that happens to use IE is just as entitled to
> privacy and security as you are
[snip]

If they are not willing to take the simplest prophylactic steps to protect
their "privacy and security", they have willingly abandoned it.

It is not out of line to point out that that is an incredibly dumb thing to
do.

- without having to jump through hoops
> and install alternate programming to get it?
>
[snip]

You're kidding, right?

Anyone attempting (futilely, by definition) to "lock down" MSIE will be
jumping through MANY more hoops and installng MUCH more "alternate
programming" (particularlty application-specific "band-aids" like pop-up
stoppers, etc., and probably at least half of the so-called "security
updates" to come out of Redmond) than those who simply side-step the whole
mess by removing MSIE en toto.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:38:12 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, null@zilch.com
wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> M$ may not allow you to download OS security patches without IE.
[snip]

TTBOMK, that has not actually happened. Yes, they go to some lengths to
make it _look_like_ MSIE is required in a lot of places it really isn't; but
so far anyway, I've been able to D/L any needed update/patch using other
tools (note that many of them aren't needed at all if you ditch MSIE in the
first place).

I suspect that as soon as they actually *require* MSIE to D/L something
like an OS bug-fix or security patch, they'll find themselves back in court
on Restraint of Trade charges -- and they'll lose.

> OTOH, there are absolutely _no_ valid reasons for using OE or Outlook.

True. Tho' one otherwise intelligent friend of mine still insists on using
Outleak because of the way Act! integrates with it. One of these days, I've
got to find a good Act!-replacement for him, so he no longer has that
excuse.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[mto]

"Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in message
news:gg6qjv8itgcrhodmhm68nmi2or7eq124gg@news.rcn.c om...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:46:14 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
> <nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> > message news:9tlgjv8kgj9l65j6hs7sm6sgdojg20hiep@news.rcn.c om...
> [farkled attributions fixed]
> >
> > > Get this through your head: There is *never* a valid reason to use
> > > MSIE for anything other than to immediately download a replacement
> > > browser.
>

You are confusing the numerous reasons that I listed for someone feeling
that they wished to continue using IE/OE with my *personal* reasons for
doing so. Whatever reasons you have chosen not to use IE/OE are perfectly
valid reasons - for **you.** That does not mean that your solution is the
*only* solution or the perfect solution for anyone other than yourself.
You might recall that old "size" they used to call "one size fits all" -
until someone nailed somebody or other for false labeling, since one size
does not fit all.

You are tilting at windmills. The browser war is over. Microsoft won,
whether any of us like it or not. The 95% of all computer users that use IE
are entitled to reasonable security. Screaming that they have to dump the
software neither convinces most users that you have a clue what you are
talking about or does the first thing to encourage Microsoft to improve its
performance in the future.

[null@zilch.com]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:08:27 GMT, Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>> You are tilting at windmills. The browser war is over. Microsoft won,
>> whether any of us like it or not. The 95% of all computer users that use IE
>
>I am not so sure the war is over.
>
>My company's website used to show a similar pattern -- 95% IE (excluding
>the robots). However, after we fixed the Netscape compatibility issues,
>it's now 66%/33%. In other words, there are a lot of frustrated Netscape
>users out there who use Netscape whenever they can and IE when
>forced to.

I'd go further and say flat out that the so-called browser war is far
from over. It's just begun. Mozilla 1.5a is "the cat's meow". Insofar
as being forced to use IE at poorly designed web sites, I used to use
Opera for that, but I've not had to do that at all in recent weeks.
Also, note that Opera can be set to appear as IE or Netscape so your
statistics aren't reliable.

Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

[mto]

<null@zilch.com> wrote in message
newsp1sjvcsv5bhtu2a4ckl2k09127nbojot7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:08:27 GMT, Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>
> >> You are tilting at windmills. The browser war is over. Microsoft won,
> >> whether any of us like it or not. The 95% of all computer users that
use IE
> >
> >I am not so sure the war is over.
> >
> >My company's website used to show a similar pattern -- 95% IE (excluding
> >the robots). However, after we fixed the Netscape compatibility issues,
> >it's now 66%/33%. In other words, there are a lot of frustrated Netscape
> >users out there who use Netscape whenever they can and IE when
> >forced to.
>
> I'd go further and say flat out that the so-called browser war is far
> from over. It's just begun. Mozilla 1.5a is "the cat's meow". Insofar
> as being forced to use IE at poorly designed web sites, I used to use
> Opera for that, but I've not had to do that at all in recent weeks.
> Also, note that Opera can be set to appear as IE or Netscape so your
> statistics aren't reliable.

My website has always been 100% Netscape compatible - and I've always gone
to great lengths to keep it that way. There was a time that my site traffic
was ~50/50, but that was years ago. For several years now a good 85% plus
of my users are using IE. About 10% of the remainder use WebTV. Perhaps it
simply depends on the subject matter of the particular website. Current
figures internet-wide gathered by the various marketing agencies run ~95%
IE. No clue whether they include WebTV in that (it is a very low end IE) or
if the WebTV phenomenon is simply finally running its course now that the
price of a real machine has gone so low.

Personally I used Netscape from the day it was introduced "way back when"
until version 4.7, which crashed literally every 15 minutes and required a
total reboot. After weeks of mucking around with the thing I got fed up -
one simply cannot develop websites while rebooting the miserable machine
every 15 minutes - so I trashed the thing. Hated to do it BUT ..... and as
far as Opera goes, I tried that a few years back. Some features were nice -
but many were missing. And it was useless as far as checking pages for
browser compatibility. When I eventually removed the program the machine
was so completely fouled up that I ended up having to disconnect the spare
drive where all the good stuff lives and reinstall the OS. NOT amused.

My position is this: fool me once, stupid you - fool me twice, stupid me.
I don't *like* IE - it does have its problems - but it is stable and fast
(at least in comparison to Netscape 4.7). I have never once seen a blue
screen of death like Net4.7 caused and can work online for 24 hours if I
want to without a reboot. Better the problems that I know than a whole new
set waiting for an unguarded moment in my opinion.

I have never once at any time - despite a huge volume of virus traffic
through my website email address - been infected with a virus or trojan.
About the worst that any AdAware/Spybot type program has ever found on my
machine is gif-bots in the cache. So whatever I am doing - which I have
historically always done - is working well. As far as I am concerned, if it
ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don't happen to believe that any of the alternatives to IE are
*necessarily* any more secure than IE - just most idiots out looking to
exploit problems look first to IE in order to do the maximum damage. Not
much point in figuring out how to hack a browser that 10 people in the
universe use

[null@zilch.com]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:26:37 -0400, "mto"
<nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:

>
><null@zilch.com> wrote in message
>news:vigtjv0olia7aeb507qd58nrler3vc2r5m@4ax.com.. .
><SNIP>
>> I have reason to believe Moz browsers are more secure. I know
>> vulnerabilites are found along the way and fixed. I've been following
>> the developments to some extent. The trick is to stay current and
>> update to the latest stable builds. You don't have the endless IE
>> patchwork game to deal with, and a continual and growing long list of
>> known vulnerabilies that M$ still hasn't fixed.
>
>I fail to see how staying current with the latest stable builds differs by a
>single iota from patching IE other than semantically.

It differs more than semantically because of the methods of releasing
"fixes". With Mozilla there are no patches, just new builds and
versions and minor version numbers and letters. The security
recommendation that makes sense is to keep current with the latest
stable build. With IE you should have both the latest version and
patches.

>>No doubt there is some
>> validity to the argument that IE simply gets more scrutiny. But I'm
>> convinced that's far from the whole story. Personally, I couldn't use
>> IE because I'd have to follow the security rules and disable all
>> active content. That makes IE unuseable. To me, it's worse that
>> worthless. I have very little concern leaving both Java and Javascript
>> enabled all the time with Moz now. I seek out all the vulnerability
>> test sites and "evil places" I can find and never have a problem. Of
>> course, I wouldn't touch the acvtivex plug in designed for the Moz
>> browsers. No way
>
>I've been using both java and javascript to develop pretty complex websites
>for nearly a decade now and I have to tell you, it doesn't take all that
>much to make the same exact javascript work in Netscape/Mozilla as well as
>IE or vice versa. The only "browser" that has ever had us jumping through a
>hoop or two are certain variations of AOL, which I would not recommend to my
>dog. The "security" that you appear to achieve is really nothing more than
>a function of the two completely different ways that Netscape and IE handle
>"plugins." As long as ~5% of the browser share belongs to something other
>than IE you are probably safe. But don't take it to the bank by a long
>shot. Someone who *really* wanted to make their malware download work on
>Netscape/Mozilla too could do so with a little bit of time and patience.
>Bottom line is not the technology but the cost/benefit ratio.

I think the bottom line is that Mozilla currently is orders of
magnitude safer to use than IE. I know of noone knowledgeable in
security who recommends using IE, or any browser that depends on IE,
or any software that depends on IE.

You seem to concur but you also seem to be one of those who is
addicted to IE. I wish you continued luck with your addiction and your
game of roulette.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

[mto]

<null@zilch.com> wrote in message
news:nmlujv8bqm65i9so2t9tloqng1sqta5bgi@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:26:37 -0400, "mto"
> <nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:
>
> >
> ><null@zilch.com> wrote in message
> >news:vigtjv0olia7aeb507qd58nrler3vc2r5m@4ax.com.. .
> ><SNIP>
> >> I have reason to believe Moz browsers are more secure. I know
> >> vulnerabilites are found along the way and fixed. I've been following
> >> the developments to some extent. The trick is to stay current and
> >> update to the latest stable builds. You don't have the endless IE
> >> patchwork game to deal with, and a continual and growing long list of
> >> known vulnerabilies that M$ still hasn't fixed.
> >
> >I fail to see how staying current with the latest stable builds differs
by a
> >single iota from patching IE other than semantically.
>
> It differs more than semantically because of the methods of releasing
> "fixes". With Mozilla there are no patches, just new builds and
> versions and minor version numbers and letters. The security
> recommendation that makes sense is to keep current with the latest
> stable build. With IE you should have both the latest version and
> patches.

This really is just semantics you know. IE releases a new version every
couple of years, doesn't change the build number every month and calls their
updates patches. And remember, because IE is the most widely used browser
literally hundreds of people spend thousands of hours regularly trying to
find security holes in it - not the case with the other browsers. Security
holes are sure to exist there too, just nowhere close to as much diligence
invested in trying to find them. Either way, whichever browser you use if
you don't spend the time to check for updates at least weekly and then make
darned sure you get them in a timely manner, sooner or later you are toast.

> >>No doubt there is some
> >> validity to the argument that IE simply gets more scrutiny. But I'm
> >> convinced that's far from the whole story. Personally, I couldn't use
> >> IE because I'd have to follow the security rules and disable all
> >> active content. That makes IE unuseable. To me, it's worse that
> >> worthless. I have very little concern leaving both Java and Javascript
> >> enabled all the time with Moz now. I seek out all the vulnerability
> >> test sites and "evil places" I can find and never have a problem. Of
> >> course, I wouldn't touch the acvtivex plug in designed for the Moz
> >> browsers. No way
> >
> >I've been using both java and javascript to develop pretty complex
websites
> >for nearly a decade now and I have to tell you, it doesn't take all that
> >much to make the same exact javascript work in Netscape/Mozilla as well
as
> >IE or vice versa. The only "browser" that has ever had us jumping through
a
> >hoop or two are certain variations of AOL, which I would not recommend to
my
> >dog. The "security" that you appear to achieve is really nothing more
than
> >a function of the two completely different ways that Netscape and IE
handle
> >"plugins." As long as ~5% of the browser share belongs to something
other
> >than IE you are probably safe. But don't take it to the bank by a long
> >shot. Someone who *really* wanted to make their malware download work on
> >Netscape/Mozilla too could do so with a little bit of time and patience.
> >Bottom line is not the technology but the cost/benefit ratio.
>
> I think the bottom line is that Mozilla currently is orders of
> magnitude safer to use than IE. I know of noone knowledgeable in
> security who recommends using IE, or any browser that depends on IE,
> or any software that depends on IE.
>
> You seem to concur but you also seem to be one of those who is
> addicted to IE. I wish you continued luck with your addiction and your
> game of roulette.

Not addicted to IE by a long shot - just not enamored of any of the others
either and don't feel like messing around with any of the others. Beta
tested Moz. OK, but not worth the disc space to me. Opera I will never
again give house room no matter how "improved" it is.

And if the truth be told, I got sick of "surfing" LONG ago. Once upon a
time long ago and far away the net was FUN, but those days are long, long
gone. I've pretty much seen it all, done it all and visited there too. So
I spend hours working online, read the news, download the email (what little
remains after I trash the zillion spams) and once a blue moon visit
somewhere "new." Makes no never mind to me if I have java on or not, since
I've seen/used all of the "cute" or useful java there is. Same with
scripts, which slow down your browser anyway.

Currently Moz probably is orders of magnitude safer than IE. But my point
is that it is not safer because it is inherently any safer but because it is
not widely enough used to make it cost effective for someone bent on
destruction (whether that is outright destruction or spyware) to spend the
time & money to develop programming that either works with both IE & Moz or
separate programming for Moz. Technically it **can** be done - and it will
be just as soon as it is worth someone's energy to do it.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:16:27 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> You are confusing the numerous reasons that I listed for someone feeling
> that they wished to continue using IE/OE with my *personal* reasons for
> doing so.
[snip]

I am confusing NOTHING.

I stated that there is no *valid* reason to use MSIE. You claimed that
there is, spouted off a laundry list of silliness, and then went on to
explicitly declare them as "valid reasons":

>>> All of those are valid reasons to
>>> continue to use IE even if Your Highness does not approve.

And now that each of your so-called counter-arguments have been shot down in
flames, you ignore that fact completely and try to pretend that the
discussion is "really" about something else.

Are you so intellectually dishonest that you cannot even debate in an
honorable manner?

FYI: You're kidding only yourself.

> You are tilting at windmills.
[snip]

No, I'm simply trying to instill a little rational thinking -- some might
call it "common sense" -- into the decision process of those still foolish
enough to run MSIE.

> The browser war is over. Microsoft won,
> whether any of us like it or not.
[snip]

Maybe, maybe not. But either way, so what? How does this have ANYTHING to
do with the question of whether having (or worse, running) MSIE is a good
idea -- a question which every (Windows) user must at some point ask
him/herself (even if they don't realize they're doing it, at the time)?

> The 95% of all computer users that use IE
> are entitled to reasonable security.
[snip]

And it is well-known that the single most-effective thing they can do to
improve their security (short of dumping Windows entirely) is to remove
MSIE/OE from their system. Heck, even Microsoft admits this (albeit, in a
"sideways" manner):
<http://www.microsoft.com/security/security_bulletins/ms03-004.asp>. Note
the portion which reads:

--> This vulnerability affects computers that have Microsoft® Internet
--> Explorer installed. (You do not have to be using Internet Explorer
--> as your Web browser to be affected by this issue.)

So the only remaining question is, why would you deny them the safety and
security you are so loudly proclaiming is their "right"?

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:28:11 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:
>
[snip]

> For several years now a good
> 85% plus of my users are using IE. About 10% of the remainder use WebTV.
> Perhaps it simply depends on the subject matter of the particular
> website.
[snip]

If anything even approaching 10% of your traffic is from WebTV weenies, I'd
venture that you just said a mouthful.

> Personally I used Netscape from the day it was introduced "way back when"
> until version 4.7, which crashed literally every 15 minutes and required
> a total reboot. After weeks of mucking around with the thing I got fed
> up - one simply cannot develop websites while rebooting the miserable
> machine every 15 minutes - so I trashed the thing.
[snip]

While 4.7 was not Netscape's "finest hour", it also wasn't anywhere near
*that* bad. If your claim is truthful, and you really had to reboot your
system every 15 minutes, then there was unquestionably *something* wrong
with either your hardware, your system setup, or your particular copy of NS
4.7 -- in about that order of likelihood.

> and as
> far as Opera goes, I tried that a few years back. Some features were
> nice - but many were missing.
[snip]

Such as? (Note, I'm not asking about proprietary "whistles and bells" (most
of which cause more problems than they cure); but rather, legitimate
standards-based web browser functions.)

> And it was useless as far as checking
> pages for browser compatibility.
[snip]

On what possible basis could you conclude that? If anything, the opposite
is true. Granted, some versions of Opera (particularly the later ones) have
various "issues" in my book; but none of those concerns relate in any way to
the fact that, even going back as far as v3.x, Opera was/is one of *the*
most standards-compliant web browsers extant (the latest versions of
Mozilla, et al, are just starting to be comparable in this respect). If a
given page does not render correctly in Opera, it is near-certainly the
page's (or rather, its author's) fault. [This presumes, of course, a
"stable" version of Opera -- meaning, essentially, the last "minor" release
in any of the major release series (with the possible exception of 4.x,
which was never fully de-bugged because development was short-circuited by
the move to the 5.x "AdWare" model).]

> When I eventually removed the program the machine
> was so completely fouled up that I ended up having to disconnect the
> spare drive where all the good stuff lives and reinstall the OS. NOT
> amused.
>
[snip]

This further reinforces the notion that your system setup was screwed up to
begin with.

> My position is this: fool me once, stupid you - fool me twice, stupid
> me.
[snip]

Then WHY do you permit yourself to be "fooled" dozens, or hundreds, or
thousands of times by MSIE/OE?!? That simply isn't rational. How many
times have you had to count on a third-party utility (such as your AV
program) to save your ass from the latest trojan/virus/worm that _would_
have been a complete non-issue save for the presence of MSIE/OE? Beyond
that, how many times have you had to apply patch, over update, over patch,
ad infinitum, ad nauseum, just to "fix" the latest variation on the same
tired old theme of MSIE/OE's *inherently* insecure nature -- a nature which
is rooted in fundamental design (and design philosophy) flaws that NO
"patch" or "update" can possibly really fix?

> I don't happen to believe that any of the alternatives to IE are
> *necessarily* any more secure than IE
[snip]

Then, obviously, you have no understanding of how the programs in question
actually function.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -