Path: news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews1 From: "Terry Austin" 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, 6 Mar 2002 13:31:27 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 87 Message-ID: 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> <3c866698.89421478@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-379.newsdawg.com X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Xref: news.net.uni-c.dk comp.lang.basic.visual.database:119690 comp.lang.basic.visual.misc:516629 comp.lang.beta:13152 comp.lang.c:585147 "Frank Adam" wrote in message news:3c866698.89421478@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au... > 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, Feel free to quote where I said that. You claimed that the things said about Microsoft by various virus and security companies was credible. I questioned that, and pointed out they have a multi-million dollar a year incentive to spread FUD about the most common (by far) operating system and email client, and that their credibility is not, therefore, a given. >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. It's business as usual. No conspiracy necessary. They don't need to make up anything, only exaggerage true weaknesses. And they do, constantly. > > >> 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. Didn't say it was secure in the sense you mean here. I said it can be made and kept as secure as any other email client. You are the one who demanded a guarantee of absolute security. I merely pointed out that you are applying a different standard to OE than you apply to Free Agent or whatever email client you use. > 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. It's never pointless blaming the OS when the OS is the true culprit in all security vulnerabilities. If Windows didn't support the various mix-and-match features between applications, OE *couldn't* have most of the more serious security vulnerabilities. >I use the OS > because i have to and i am aware of it's flaws. Same is true for OE, for me. > 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. Same is true of all other email clients. *All* of them have security vulnerabilities, many of which are inherent to the OS. All operating systems have security vulnerabilities, most a dozen or more a year. No OS or email client is secure, even reasonably so, without staying current on patches and updates. OE is no different on this than whatever you use. And, again, keeping OE patched is the same process as keep Windows patched, and if you don't keep Windows patched, *nothing* is secure. There's very little difference from one email client to the next. Terry Austin