Path: news.net.uni-c.dk!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!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: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:24:05 GMT Message-ID: <3c878255.162069623@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> <3c866698.89421478@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au> <3c8692e4.100763252@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 37 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.164.242.23 X-Trace: 1015514720 18474 203.164.242.23 Xref: news.net.uni-c.dk comp.lang.basic.visual.database:119715 comp.lang.basic.visual.misc:516720 comp.lang.beta:13162 comp.lang.c:585362 On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:18:40 -0800, "Terry Austin" wrote: >MS doesn't engage in pointless litigation any more than any profit >driven company does. It's only defamation if damage is done. >It would be difficult to damage MS's reputation. >> ROFL. That's true. ;-) I have no real quarrel with MS, some of the stuff they did is ingenious and as far as the OS is concerned it would have to be a nightmare to maintain, including plugging the holes of course. >> No, i simply replied to a one word reply, which indeed was bullshit. >No, you said it in reply to me, and your exact words were: >"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." > Correct and that was to underline the fact that you can not call something secure, if it's clearly not. >You attack OE for things that are true of all email clients, and all >operating systems. You apply different standards to different email > It's you who brought up different clients, not me. I never said anything about other clients, until you've named FreeAgent and i stand by what i've said about it as a news reader. It's you, who is still using the excuse that the others are just as bad. That doesn't stick as a defensive argument. >I don't entirely disagree with you. > Let's agree to not agree entirely. We're wasting 4 groups' time here, arguing over nothing. Regards, Frank