• To: "'Dare Obasanjo'" <dareo@m...>,"'Joe English'" <jenglish@f...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:36:20 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621C40@r...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> However you may simply be claiming that the ability for users 
> to receive or run attachments is a feature that should not be 
> enabled by MUAs in today's hostile Internet. It is sad, but 
> many seem to believe that such thinking is the answer. :( 

We really are off-topic here, but surely the only proper solution is
that untrusted code should be run in a sandbox. Yes, this needs a decent
operating system and possibly even hardware support for addressing
protection. The basic security principles have been known for 30 years.
Sooner or later people are going to switch to a properly secure
computing platform, the current situation with virus-checking and spam
is getting more and more farcical.

Michael Kay

• References:
  • RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: ANN: XML-DBMS version 2.0, alpha 3
• Next by Date: Re: DTDs, W3C Schemas, RELAX NG, Schematron?
• Previous by thread: Re: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Next by thread: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread