Oh, one other thing, I use Outlook as my email client too. The thing is with either one of them is that if you know what you're doing and have configured them properly, then one doesn't have a problem with either one of them. Mailwasher comes into play too before Outlook even starts so I can filter out and whack at the Pop3 server emails before I even pull them to Outlook.
Agreed - first we don't use windoze, and second, we don't use a web browser because that's the only application you've learned. For example, I'm using an application called 'mailx' which is a derivative of 'mail' which has been around since the mind 1980s - before microsoft invented networking or whatever. Finally, you have to remember that those of us who are serious about networks don't use a toy firewall - and it doesn't offer any services and is locked away from unauthorized people. Our firewalls are not administrated over the internal (never mind DMZ or external) network.
Well, this is a holiday in many countries, but when I downloaded this group at 14:00 UTC, I found 18 articles in this thread:
From: "itoii 3uvu" 7 posts X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Walter Roberson) 1 post (news reader undefined)
From: Juan Valdez 1 post User-Agent: Xnews/06.08.25
From: Mungo 1 post User-Agent: Xnews/06.08.25
From: "mhicaoidh" 1 post X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
From: "Duane ;-\\)" 3 posts X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
From: elaich 1 post User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
So, seven people, three using outhouse, three using Xnews, and one undefined. If you look at my headers, I'm using slrn on UNIX.
If you look at the subjects of the articles in this group today, most relate to toy firewalls used on home computers or at best small businesses. So, are you still surprised?
lol . . well i thought we were havin some fun here . . .
anyway what initially appeared to be a software issue apparently turns out to be a people issue. but the problem does not lessen simply because human fault defeats the firewall as opposed to software fault.
the perfect firewall exists, aka the scissors to the internet and network connection wire.
but if the purpose of the internet = liberal exchange of information, then
if the customer and the contractor (service or goods supplier) cannot exchange such information via e-mail attachment; and
if the customer and the contractor cannot advertise each other's products with cd-roms,
then perhaps the fax machine and pencil and paper resumes its prior import; and the firewall goes by the way of the buggy whip, save for a select few individuals willing to invest large amounts of time and money to develop firewalls that block much of the information business needs to prosper.
and as for microsoft . . . . even assuming all of the criticism against the dominant player is correct, the average computer consumer, including business, appears unwilling to abandon microsoft products. And when a business is trying to attract customers, insisting that the prospective customer redesign its computer platforms to accomodate the security conscious seller of goods and services, that sounds like a recipe for lost customers.
to me anyhow, the big ticket issue is not whether the generally sophisticated participants on this bulletin board can author and // or use a robust firewall, but rather whether the average and unsophisticated consumers of computers can exchange documents via e-mail attachment; and can advertise with each other via cd-rom, without having the company or the individual computer user's propietary and financial data immediately placed at risk of loss.
imho, the future of firewalls lies not so much with expert usage, but rather whether a user friendly security suite of products can be assembled that allows the liberal and safe electronic exchange of information aka e-mail attachments.
i tell ya what software i would like to have . . .
what are those terrorists bin ladin and zarqawi usin for firewalls?
the full resources of the nsa; cia; domestic and foreign armies; secret police forces of various countries; spy satellites; paid informants; 8 figure cash bounties and on and on . .. and these guys is laughin at the u.s., monthly on the web for years now . . .
now that is what i call the ultimate and impregnable firewall computer security . . . lol
:Well, this is a holiday in many countries, but when I downloaded this :group at 14:00 UTC, I found 18 articles in this thread:
It's trn in text-only mode, and it prompts me before invoking -any- viewer or conversion (even before displaying 8859-1 if it notices my current LANG doesn't officially support that.) It even prompts me before it'll display text/html as plain text.
My mailer is text-only, not even any MIME support (though I occasionally dip into a text-only mailer with MIME support if I have to detach a document.)
Me too. it seems the only one who seem to take it lightly was Mr. *M*. As for a couple of the others????????
FW(s) are a needed solution more so with MS O/S(s) than others. But nevertheless, they are needed for the others too in todays environment. I don't see FW(s) going away anytime soon, may be never. PFW(s) or otherwise.
Well they do know how to make things user friendly and there is nothing wrong with that.
I agree with you on this.
I guess the developers will do the best that they can with the end-user products O/S(s) and security products.
But keep in mind that if there is a Human element in the equation, then it's questionable to say the least.
Hey if there were creatures from another planet doing the programming, there is a strong possibility things would be a lot better. I guess we had better get out there soon and find them. ;-)
In article , itoii 3uvu wrote: :i tell ya what software i would like to have . . .
:what are those terrorists bin ladin and zarqawi usin for firewalls?
:the full resources of the nsa; cia; domestic and foreign armies; secret :police forces of various countries; spy satellites; paid informants; 8 :figure cash bounties and on and on . .. and these guys is laughin at the :u.s., monthly on the web for years now . . .
I certainly don't know the answer myself, but I did read an item (of unknown legitimacy) that pointed out certain timing "coincidences" between political events in the USA and capture/injury of some of the important terrorists. The item made the assertion that one [named] government of that region essentially knew where many of the terrorists were, and kept watch on them, rounding another one up at such times as was politically advantageous.
i note however, that "supporting" seems to be a fair conclusion based on the facts recited.
IF, i had knowledge (and i don't) of current whereabouts of specific "important terrorists" sought by u.s.a., and withheld such information, i would be promptly arrested. so to say a foreign gov't possesses, but fails to provide u.s.a. with specific information that u.s.a. is spending untold resources to obtain, implies the support of that country for the terrorists. our president indicated shortly after the 9 11 bombing: "that you're either with us or against us."
guantanamo prison is not filled because the u.s.a. fears retaliation . . the u.s.a. wants to and has an announced policy of "bringing to justice" all "important terrorists." that does not mean leaving same individuals in the field.
In article , itoii 3uvu wrote: :that's the best explanation i have heard and sounds reasonable . . another :gov't supporting the terrorists.
You should quote enough of the previous posting so that people know what you are referring to.
The item that I referred to about the timing coincidences re: political events and terrorist captures, did not claim that the relevant government was "supporting" terrorists: only that the country that was named knew where some of them were and didn't arrest them.
I would imagine that there could potentially be advantages to knowing where your hard criminals were but not going after them: if you are able to keep close watch on them without alerting them, then you can potentially gain access to their plans, and you can see who comes in and out and who is communicated with (and possibly what is said.) If, though, you go after them as soon as you find them, then the survivors reform elsewhere (wanting "revenge") and you don't know what they are up to or who they are talking to.
This is classical style detective work: you don't go after a gang by arresting members on (e.g.) parking tickets: you monitor and you infiltrate, and you gather enough evidence to really break their power.
NB: I have no idea whether this kind of monitoring is taking place for terrorists, nor whether any of their where-abouts are known: I am just reporting on an item I read, and indicating how aspects of it could be plausible.
Taking a moment's reflection, itoii 3uvu mused: | | if the customer and the contractor (service or goods supplier) cannot | exchange such information via e-mail attachment; and | | if the customer and the contractor cannot advertise each other's | products with cd-roms,
... quite simply, you are painting with too broad a brush ...