• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:55:53 -0700
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B4BF@HQ5>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B4BF@HQ5>

Sorry for being completely off-topic, but this is one
of my major pet peeves:


Bullard, Claude L wrote:
>
> At the rate of attacks, at some point, Outlook
> will be the most secure and virus resistant client
> available.

It will never be as secure and virus resistant as
traditional Unix MUAs which HAVE THE GOOD SENSE NOT
TO AUTOMATICALLY RUN EXECUTABLE PROGRAMS THAT ARRIVE
IN THE MAIL.

Sheesh!

Remember the "Good Times" memetic virus that used to
make the rounds every September?  How we had to carefully
explain to the naive freshmen that no, it's not possible
to catch a computer virus simply by reading an e-mail
message because no programmer would be stupid enough to
write a mail reader that would make this possible?

Guess we were wrong.

(Outlook isn't really the main culprit either; it's
Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and other programs
that interpret documents as programs and give them
the equivalent of root privileges.)


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTutorial)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: DTDs, W3C Schemas, RELAX NG, Schematron?
• 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