Path: news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!spool01.syd.optusnet.com.au!spool.optusnet.com.au!210.49.20.118.MISMATCH!not-for-mail From: fajp@optushome.com.au (Frank Adam) Newsgroups: comp.lang.basic.visual.database,comp.lang.basic.visual.misc,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: WARNING! My OE removed the attachment as being unsafe Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 19:30:46 GMT Message-ID: <3c866698.89421478@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au> References: <3C8435F2.4ED2879A@attglobal.net> <3c851cb0_2@news.iprimus.com.au> <3c853c75.13087585@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au> <3c860e75.66855528@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 40 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.164.242.23 X-Trace: 1015443028 18469 203.164.242.23 Xref: news.net.uni-c.dk comp.lang.basic.visual.database:119682 comp.lang.basic.visual.misc:516611 comp.lang.beta:13148 comp.lang.c:585104 On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:07:29 -0800, "Terry Austin" wrote: >These would be companies who profit directly, and greatly, from >making people believe that OE (and other apps, and everything >else) is unsafe. Yeah, they're impartial. > So Microsoft is just playing along, developing patches for non existent holes, so all those phony virus damaged businesses and individuals can think that they are safe by using the third party applications developed by the companies whose recommendations (false as they are) are what made MS to create the patches. Ah-hah. It makes sense now. It's just one big damn conspiracy. >> Unless you (or MS) can guarantee to me that this was *the* patch, the >> patch and nothing but the last patch.... i'll stay wary and away from >> it. >Then you should stay wary and away from *all* email clients, operating >systems, and all other computer software, because *nothing* can make >that guarantee. >> Ok, so back to where we started.. Can we claim that OE is *secure* if nobody can guarantee it and we keep finding new holes on a regular basis ? After all it's either secure, or it's not secure. As Hamlet said : To be, or presumably be ? ;-) >> >client is secure, because Windows is not secure. >> It's not ? Damn, but i have installed all the patches for it ! >The point remains. Windows is no more secure than OE, and yet you >use that, and program for it. And the process of keep Windows secure >is the process of keeping OE secure. > It's pointless blaming the OS, we are talking about OE. I use the OS because i have to and i am aware of it's flaws. If there was a reasonable period of time within which there were no security holes found, we could *deem* both the OS and IE/OE to be secure. Until then considering them as such, is simply naive. Regards, Frank