Flash is evil

<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:bk9e519u4jd9ndtt24epqsdp06pj9ilfir@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:42:20 -0500, Nospam <nobody@nowhere.com> wrotg:
>
>>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:55:34 -0600, <Vanguard> wrotg:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Visit http://www.macromedia.com/ or any site that shows Flash
>>>content.
>>>Right-click on the Flash content and select Settings. Click on the
>>>Folder icon button. Set their cache to zero and check the box to
>>>remember your setting. Flash uses its own cookie files which have
>>>the
>>>.sol filetype.
>>>
>>>If the web page you visit with Flash content has disabled user
>>>configuration of some settings, visit Macromedia's online settings
>>>manager at
>>>http://www.macromedia.com/support/do...manager02.html
>>>(they have yet to deliver a seperate utility that you can run
>>>locally).
>>>Unlike UI applications that open their own window, the mouse cursor
>>>will
>>>not change when you hover over clickable objects in that web page;
>>>i.e.,
>>>you click on the tab buttons to change between panels but you won't
>>>see
>>>the mouse cursor change to indicate they are clickable. If you use
>>>the
>>>Website Privacy Settings panel (5th tab) to clear the Flash cookies
>>>(.sol files), not all are deleted as a file search will shows some
>>>still
>>>around, one of which retains the settings you configured.
>>>
>>>I use PopUpCop as my popup blocker (works better than the rest that
>>>I've
>>>trialed) but haven't yet managed to convince its author to include
>>>.sol
>>>files in its cookie whitelist feature (the author isn't familiar with
>>>Flash cookies enough to want to touch them yet).
>>>
>>>You don't need anti-spyware to eliminate the shared objects (i.e.,
>>>.sol
>>>cookie files that different domains can access). Just set the Flash
>>>caches to zero then you have no locally saved shared objects.
>>
>>The Macromedia page you referenced shows Flash 2.6. I have Flash 2.7
>>and I can
>>find NO such setting for a global basis. The settings box is only for
>>the site
>>currently being visited (macromedia.com in this case). How do I deny
>>shared
>>objects globally with 2.7?
>
> Actually, Vanguard I read your post again more carefully. Macromedia's
> site is
> so cryptic I didn't understand what you were saying. I "think" I have
> things
> configured correctly now.
>
> Thanks.


Because the cursor doesn't change shape, users aren't made aware of the
clickable spots on that page (when I first visited there, I thought they
were just showing me a picture of the settings manager and I kept
hunting around for a download). I have asked Macromedia to provide a
local client program that allows the user to change Flash settings
without using their web site. Their method requires you to be online
and visit their web site to make changes to the settings (beyond the
default ones included by the Flash settings when right-clicking on Flash
content). Their response is "we're working on it." That was a couple
months ago but obviously Flash has been around awhile and still no local
client program to configure Flash without having to go online.

--
__________________________________________________ __________
** Post your replies to the newsgroup - Share with others **
For e-mail Reply: remove "NIXTHIS", add "#VS811" to Subject.
__________________________________________________ __________

[Mandy Abbett]

Jay T. Blocksom <not.deliverable+usenet02@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
news:5om9515fpb63r872q5ehnf9uem0j835a29@news.speak easy.net:

> [snip quoted sig -- please fix your newsreader to respect sig
> delimiters, and learn to trim your posts correctly]
>

And your sig is RFC compliant ?

[Mandy Abbett]

Jay T. Blocksom <not.deliverable+usenet02@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
news9f351150kt39320jaaocac4j1s5drm7c8@news.speakeasy.n et:

> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:53:13 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Rick
> <rsimon@cris.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Not that I'm overly fond of Macromedia, but the article you
> > referenced is
> > dealing with Macrovision, not Macromedia.
> [snip]
>
> I'll be damned. You are absolutely right. <snip>
> Thanks for pointing out my error.
>

And that type of issue leaves your credibilty where Jay ?

"Mandy Abbett" <spam_me_if_u_can@[0.0.0.0]> wrote in message
news:Xns9633DB2C931A1SpamTrap@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Jay T. Blocksom <not.deliverable+usenet02@appropriate-tech.net> wrote
> in
> news:5om9515fpb63r872q5ehnf9uem0j835a29@news.speak easy.net:
>
>> [snip quoted sig -- please fix your newsreader to respect sig
>> delimiters, and learn to trim your posts correctly]
>>
>
> And your sig is RFC compliant ?
>
>


Just curious. What about Jay's signature is not RFC compliant? The
sigdash delimiter is "-- <CR-LF>" (dash, dash, space, newline). There
is no restriction that another sigdash string cannot appear somewhere
after their first sigdash; i.e., all further sigdash strings are
irrelevant since the start of the signature has already been delimited.
It is *recommended* that a signature be limited to 3 or 4 lines, not
including the sigdash line itself. It is not a requirement, only a
suggestion (and a good one, too), especially since it is simply an
agreed upon netiquette and not a standard. Being longer than 3 or 4
lines does not make a signature non-compliant since it was not a
REQUIRED or MUST condition.

Oh, and in just what RFC is the sigdash even defined? The sigdash is a
de facto standard, not an RFC standard. Someone know an RFC that
defines the sigdash delimiter *and* specifies any structure per REQUIRED
or MUST conditions?

--
__________________________________________________ __________
** Post your replies to the newsgroup - Share with others **
For e-mail Reply: remove "NIXTHIS", add "#VS811" to Subject.
__________________________________________________ __________

"Far Canal" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cc247afce6ca9d698cf5c@news.readfreenews. net...
> <Vanguard> wrote
>
>
>> > And your sig is RFC compliant ?
>> >
>> >
>> Just curious. What about Jay's signature is not RFC compliant? The
>> sigdash delimiter is "-- <CR-LF>" (dash, dash, space, newline).
>> There
>> is no restriction that another sigdash string cannot appear somewhere
>> after their first sigdash; i.e., all further sigdash strings are
>> irrelevant since the start of the signature has already been
>> delimited.
>> It is *recommended* that a signature be limited to 3 or 4 lines, not
>> including the sigdash line itself. It is not a requirement, only a
>> suggestion (and a good one, too), especially since it is simply an
>> agreed upon netiquette and not a standard. Being longer than 3 or 4
>> lines does not make a signature non-compliant since it was not a
>> REQUIRED or MUST condition.
>>
>> Oh, and in just what RFC is the sigdash even defined? The sigdash is
>> a
>> de facto standard, not an RFC standard. Someone know an RFC that
>> defines the sigdash delimiter *and* specifies any structure per
>> REQUIRED
>> or MUST conditions?
>>
>>
>
> Dunno about all that, but Jay's indent string is ****ed. His
> replies are <space> *>* <space> - the first <space> shouldn't be
> there.
>
>
>


RFC 1036 for Usenet messages (which obsoletes RFC 850) doesn't define
quoting. RFC 977 for NNTP defines the transfer protocol and not the
message content or formatting. Many of the standards for formatting
come from e-mail, so I looked at RFC 2822 but it had nothing about
quoting [the original message]. Eventually I found RFC 3676 which says
the quote line must start with the ">" character so a leading space
violates the RFC.

Jay is using Forte Agent which their users claim is more compliant than
OE. It seems odd that Xnews (what Mandy uses) or Gravity (what you use)
can't figure out how to parse quoted content by detecting a line that
starts with the quoting character while ignoring any whitespace before
it. I figure if OE can handle it than most other common NNTP clients
should handle it, too. Since I'm using Outlook Express, I'm pretty sure
something that is non-compliant in my posts, too.

--
__________________________________________________ __________
** Post your replies to the newsgroup - Share with others **
For e-mail Reply: remove "NIXTHIS", add "#VS811" to Subject.
__________________________________________________ __________

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 09:32:24 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Mandy Abbett
<spam_me_if_u_can@[0.0.0.0]> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom <not.deliverable+usenet02@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> news:5om9515fpb63r872q5ehnf9uem0j835a29@news.speak easy.net:
>
> > [snip quoted sig -- please fix your newsreader to respect sig
> > delimiters, and learn to trim your posts correctly]
> >
>
> And your sig is RFC compliant ?
>

Yes, actually, it is.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 09:46:06 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Mandy Abbett
<spam_me_if_u_can@[0.0.0.0]> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> And that type of issue leaves your credibilty where Jay ?

Still way ahead of your's, troll.

*plonk*

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 21:17:07 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, <Vanguard> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> RFC 1036 for Usenet messages (which obsoletes RFC 850) doesn't define
> quoting. RFC 977 for NNTP defines the transfer protocol and not the
> message content or formatting. Many of the standards for formatting
> come from e-mail, so I looked at RFC 2822 but it had nothing about
> quoting [the original message]. Eventually I found RFC 3676 which says
> the quote line must start with the ">" character so a leading space
> violates the RFC.
>
[snip]

All quite correct, except for the omission of one salient detail: The ">"
character is only canonical as a quote indicator in the context of, and the
requirement for it to be the first character of a quoted line is only relevant
to, MIME Content-Type: "format=flowed" documents, which these Usenet articles
are not.

> Jay is using Forte Agent which their users claim is more compliant than
> OE.
[snip]

Correct. But then, a ground slug would likely be more RFC-compliant than
Outhouse Excuse. <~>

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

"Jay T. Blocksom" <not.deliverable+usenet02@appropriate-tech.net> wrote
in message news:mh2o51pashsmauo6f9akiukmt7qni1nrm6@news.speak easy.net...
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 21:17:07 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>,
> <Vanguard> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > RFC 1036 for Usenet messages (which obsoletes RFC 850) doesn't
> > define
> > quoting. RFC 977 for NNTP defines the transfer protocol and not the
> > message content or formatting. Many of the standards for formatting
> > come from e-mail, so I looked at RFC 2822 but it had nothing about
> > quoting [the original message]. Eventually I found RFC 3676 which
> > says
> > the quote line must start with the ">" character so a leading space
> > violates the RFC.
> >
> [snip]
>
> All quite correct, except for the omission of one salient detail: The
> ">"
> character is only canonical as a quote indicator in the context of,
> and the
> requirement for it to be the first character of a quoted line is only
> relevant
> to, MIME Content-Type: "format=flowed" documents, which these Usenet
> articles
> are not.
>
> > Jay is using Forte Agent which their users claim is more compliant
> > than
> > OE.
> [snip]
>
> Correct. But then, a ground slug would likely be more RFC-compliant
> than
> Outhouse Excuse. <~>
>
> --
>
> Jay T. Blocksom
> --------------------------------
> Appropriate Technology, Inc.
> usenet02[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.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - -
> Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited
> under
> 47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.


If RFC 3676 which defines quoting only applies for MIME encoding then,
by your own argument, you are using quoting when it doesn't apply.
Basically you screwed yourself in your argument: quoting only applies
with MIME, you're not using MIME so you should not be using quoting its
conventions, but you do use quoting. Maybe you know of another RFC that
defines quoting that is not in any way related to MIME or mentions it.
Of course, Jay's 12-line signature isn't exactly de facto standard,
either. The sigdash is not RFC defined but the common netiquette or de
facto standard is to keep it under 3 or 4 lines, which is a a third of
Jay's signature line count.

Is the problem that Forte actually forcibly prepends a space character
before the leading quote character? Or did you redefine the quoting
sequence to add a space before the quote character? OE won't do it but
I thought Forte would compress the quoting to eliminate unnecessary and
space-wasting spaces between the quote characters. So when you replied
to a reply, the leading double indention would look like ">>" instead of
"> >", triple indention would look like ">>>" instead of "> > >", and so
forth. Since your prior post with double indention looks like " > >"
then it looks like YOU reconfigured Forte to deliberately change the
quote character from ">" to " >" (i.e., you change it from one character
to a 2-character string).

--
__________________________________________________ __________
** Post your replies to the newsgroup - Share with others **
For e-mail Reply: remove "DELETE", add "~VN56~" to Subject.
__________________________________________________ __________

"Far Canal" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cc73b076f6dda3298cfaa@news.readfreenews. net...
> <Vanguard> wrote
>
>
>> Is the problem that Forte actually forcibly prepends a space
>> character
>> before the leading quote character? Or did you redefine the quoting
>> sequence to add a space before the quote character? OE won't do it
>> but
>> I thought Forte would compress the quoting to eliminate unnecessary
>> and
>> space-wasting spaces between the quote characters. So when you
>> replied
>> to a reply, the leading double indention would look like ">>" instead
>> of
>> "> >", triple indention would look like ">>>" instead of "> > >", and
>> so
>> forth. Since your prior post with double indention looks like " > >"
>> then it looks like YOU reconfigured Forte to deliberately change the
>> quote character from ">" to " >" (i.e., you change it from one
>> character
>> to a 2-character string).
>>
>>
>
> http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote3.html
>
> 3.1 Which character should I use to mark the quoted text?
> Use the "Greater-Than" character (">"). This character is
> recognized as a quotationmark by almost every newsreader and is
> mentioned in the netiquette as such for technical reasons (Son-
> Of-RFC 1036 and successors).


In RFC 1036, it discusses the various headers and transfer mechanisms
but I saw nothing about how to handle inclusion of original content in a
reply (i.e., quoting).

Articles, like the one above at the link, are not standards, nor is this
one even really a synopsis of netiquette that has become a de facto
standard. The Net is rife with articles on what conventions are used
regarding quoting, like
http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/nquote.html (and note question &
answer #11). Since such conventions may change over time, an NNTP
client that has been abandoned or been stagnant won't keep pace with the
changes or its code maintained to correct bugs or alter behavior to
conform. Gravity got abandoned quite awhile ago but looks like it got
picked up by enthusiasts and is now at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/. Did you get it from there?
They have forums (http://sourceforge.net/forum/?group_id=95245) where
you might want to ask why Gravity cannot ignore contiguous whitespace
characters before the quote character; however, there are so few posts
there that you probably won't get a response. You could post a bug
report to see what, if any, response you get from the developers. You
might also want to ask over in the alt.usenet.offline-reader and
alt.usenet.offline-reader groups.

In trying to find something that shows standardization or a
representation of a de facto standard, RFC 3676 was the closest that I
could find despite that its context is primarily for use with MIME
encoding (although there may be no MIME parts within the body of the
message since the content type and formatting can be specified globally
by headers). The fact that NNTP clients let users select which
character to use for quoting or even specify a string of characters
reflects the fact that there is no substantive standard available that
dictates exactly how quoting is always to be performed.

While there is the common netiquette regarding many Usenet conventions
(which are not themselves defined standards by a recognized authority),
Jay decided to be non-conventional. That's like some posters that
change the quote character to "|" or ":" instead of ">". While most of
would prefer to compress the quote indents to eliminate spaces, Jay (or
Forte) choose to add more space.

--
__________________________________________________ __________
** Post your replies to the newsgroup - Share with others **
For e-mail Reply: remove "DELETE", add "~VN56~" to Subject.
__________________________________________________ __________