Eudora

[sethra]

Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
news:ckhbnv0c5u922ts2et4ngvth84do6g6o6h@news.rcn.c om:

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:00:39 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, sethra
><azoblue@myrealboxDOT.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Eudora is spyware free.
> [snip]
>
> Wrong.
>
><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...pgnhiisvb2mtof
>%40news.rcn.com>
>

Thanks for reiterating exactly what I stated in my post, disregarding your
misunderstanding of the terms "spyware," "adware," and "paid mode."

If you had actually read my post, you would see that I called Eudora
"adware" unless run in paid mode. *Anyone* running *any* form of adware
does at their own risk.

Furthermore, I also stated that unless you tell it not to, Eudora will
check for updates even if run in paid mode, and gave instructions on how to
turn off automatic checking.

Running in paid mode, with automatic update checking turned off, Eudora
makes ZERO non-user initiated internet connections.

This is easily verified with a firewall.

Install firewall. Install Eudora. Register Eudora. Turn off automatic
update checking. Restrict the Eudora firewall rules to ports 25 and 110 to
the IP of your mailserver (note: this kills html mail also, but being a
privacy/security conscious internet user, you don't use html mail or the
Microsoft viewer, right?).

Check your firewall logs to see if Eudora tries to connect anywhere else.
Nary a peep in 5+ years, and multiple versions.

--
~sethra

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 01:34:15 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, sethra
<azoblue@myrealboxDOT.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> news:ckhbnv0c5u922ts2et4ngvth84do6g6o6h@news.rcn.c om:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:00:39 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, sethra
> ><azoblue@myrealboxDOT.com> wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Eudora is spyware free.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> ><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...pgnhiisvb2mtof
> >%40news.rcn.com>
> >
>
> Thanks for reiterating exactly what I stated in my post,
[snip]

I did no such thing.

> ... disregarding your
> misunderstanding of the terms "spyware," "adware," and "paid mode."
>
[snip]

I also do NOT "misunderstand" those terms (tho' apparently, you do -- or,
you're just very deeply in denial).

What part of "the Registration Code is 'phoned home" did you not grasp?

What part of "the 'phone home' mechanism ... remains active in Paid and ...
Light ... modes; so therfore, it by definition has NOTHING to do
with 'ad serving' or 'ad-response tracking'" did you not grasp?

What part of the fact that these behaviors have been confirmed by Qualcomm
personnel did you not grasp?

> If you had actually read my post, you would see that I called Eudora
> "adware" unless run in paid mode.
[snip]

I did read your post. Then as now, your notation that Eudora is (as of
v4.3.0 only, which you failed to mention) "adware", while a true statement,
is irrelevant.

> *Anyone* running *any* form of adware
> does at their own risk.
>
[snip]

Wrong.

"Adware", per se, is not necessarily evil. Spyware is. The fact that much
"adware" is *also* "spyware" does not change that.

> Furthermore, I also stated that unless you tell it not to, Eudora will
> check for updates even if run in paid mode, and gave instructions on how
> to turn off automatic checking.
>
[snip]

Also not relevant.

> Running in paid mode, with automatic update checking turned off, Eudora
> makes ZERO non-user initiated internet connections.
>

Try again. There is *NO* legitimate reason to "'phone home" the GUID in
order to check for an update -- yet John Purlia (who wrote the fscking
code!) already admitted that it does exactly that, even in "Paid" mode.

> This is easily verified with a firewall.
>
> Install firewall. Install Eudora. Register Eudora. Turn off automatic
> update checking. Restrict the Eudora firewall rules to ports 25 and 110
> to the IP of your mailserver
[snip]

Ahhh... So you're obviously referring to a so-called "software firewall",
running on the same WinBox as Eudora. Clue #1: That's not a firewall. Clue
#2: Given the actual situation, you you would be a fool to trust whatever it
may report.

--

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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[sethra]

Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
news:n8d6ovsiqam5ffpcjtq86s9012o06dar38@news.rcn.c om:

[Jay's histrionics snipped]

Yes, I realize just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to
get you.

Regardless, that in no way negates the fact that everything I've said
regarding Eudora is easily verifiable. Furthermore, arguing with those who
are either so insecure or misinformed they have to resort to ad hominems is
neither productive nor educational, so carry on if you wish, I'm not going
to waste any more of my time.

Cheers,
--
~sethra

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 04:05:06 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, sethra
<azoblue@myrealboxDOT.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> news:n8d6ovsiqam5ffpcjtq86s9012o06dar38@news.rcn.c om:
>
> [Jay's histrionics snipped]
>
[snip]

Apparently, in an effort to avoid addressing the points I raised.

> Regardless, that in no way negates the fact that everything I've said
> regarding Eudora is easily verifiable.
[snip]

Since several of your claims were flat-out false, so too is that statement.

> Furthermore, arguing with those
> who are either so insecure or misinformed they have to resort to ad
> hominems is neither productive nor educational,
[snip]

On this point, I concur. And since you have consistently exhibited
precisely that behavior throughout this thread ("...disregarding your
misunderstanding of...", "If you had actually read my post...",
"histrionics", etc.), there remains only one more thing to say:

*plonk*

--

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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -