"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
It was not a criticism of their choice, just a recommendation they try
something different because it may solve the problem they are having.
But you didn't. You said:
"(Loosing OE would help as well)"
You have a point in that there might be other systems which are better
for certain uses but you didn't suggest what they were or in what precise
ways they were better.
Well to an extent, pretty much any of the applications designed as news
posting/reading clients will tend to do a better job.
However if you would like a specific recommendation, then I would suggest
that for people used to OE or Outlook they might like Thunderbird. It has
a nice (but not too different) UI, and you get a number of advantages like
good junk mail detection, ability to disable running any active content in
news/mail messages, support for RSS news feeds etc.
If you don't mind paying for usenet software, then "The Bat" gets very
good reviews.
Ports of traditional Unix usenet software like Tin can also be good. Forte
Agent seems popular among many usenet users.
If anyone is tempted by these applications, where are they obtained, how
much do they cost, how are they installed ... etc.
Then people have to learn new skills ...
But who was posting to say that s/he was having difficulty with OE?
No-one.
The OP had a problem with jumbled message ordering. This could have been
attributed to OE's limited threading ability - there is an option buried
in the later versions to select whether this is done based on posting time
or thread IDs. (having found it the other day however, I can't find which
dialogue they have hidden it in today!)
There are several ways of ordering one's posts in OE ...
I am sure you are diligent enough (and sufficiently aware of the issues)
to keep your computer patched up to date, run current anti virus and
firewall software/hardware,
I am. MS helpfully suggests those things.
It does, alas many do not even read the suggestions (e.g. the recent very
sensible change to turn on the firewall in XP SP2 by default. This was
necessary simply because the majority of users did not bother to enable it
even though it was installed and ready to go).
So you're suggesting applications which don't suggest that users think for
themselves?
keep your preview pane turned off,
I have NEVER used a preview pane, I can't see the point. It's never been
the default, I've never even tried to find out how to put it on. Don't
bother telling me :-)
I was under the impression (certainly for email) that the default window
layout in OE still has the message preview turned on. (i.e. the three pane
layout, inbox and other folders to the left, message titles top right,
preview bottom right).
Perhaps my pcs have been the exceptions - although I can't see why they
should be.
I've been using internet for a few years and have never seen a preview pan.
I've only heard about them from people who've droned on boringly (!) about
how wonderful they are. I've never a) understood why or b) been tempted to
try to discover how to do it. But all these folk have not been OE users,
they've been telling me about preview panes as one of the refinements of
their own systems.
and most importantly be selective as to what emails you open rather than
delete.
I certainly am. And I block those which I find offensive. But I still
read yours G
Note to self, must try harder ;-)
Don't push your luck!
(Sadly the answer is usualy once their computer is spending 90% of its
CPU time as a part of a script kiddies botnet, slugging internet
performance carrying out DDoS attacks, sending spam, and hosting dodgy
porn)
I don't understand the construction of that sentence, could you look at
it and explain it better, please? It might be interesting.
Apologies if you are already aware of some of the stuff that follows, but
it gives a fuller description of some of the above mentioned topics:
The following does indeed explain what I suppose you meant but if you look
at your sentence - in innocence as it were - I think you might be puzzled
too.
Much of the focus of computer "malware" in general has shifted in the last
couple of years. There was a time when computer viruses etc. ranged in
their unpleasantness, but they usualy shared a common goal of causing some
form of loss or disruption to the computer user, and propagating copies of
themselves. I don't pretend to understand the motivation of the people who
wrote these things, but I expect recognition among their peer group was a
big factor.
With peers like that ...
More recently things have taken a turn for the more sinister. Organised
crime has moved in, and opportunities for developing these technologies
into hard cash generating activities have grown.
Yes. Fortunately the companies I deal with on-line are extremely security
aware. I've reported several spoofs. I think this is important but it's
surprising how may people complain about them yet do nothing.
As a result, the focus of much malware these days is to install itself on
a computer and *not* set out to do it any immediate harm. The desire being
to remain undetected. The majority of these applications open up back
doors into the computer. They will silently connect to a IRC discussion
channel, and await instruction from their master. This is a "botnet". The
back door will typically include a trojan downloader. This is a program
that can be instructed to download and execute any other software at will.
There are several common reasons for doing this:
1) The computers in the botnet can be instructed to perform a Distributed
Denial of Service attack. A recent example of this was a Russian organised
crime network that was targeting online casino sites. Prior to a large
sporting event they would threaten to take down their web site unless it's
owners paid up the requested extortion fee. If they refused, they would
find their web sites under attack from tens of thousands of infected PCs.
This would in effect knock them off the web with their potential customers
unable to reach them. DDoS attacks also have a knock-on effect on other
internet users as a result of the bandwidth wasted by the attacks.
2) Estimates vary, but it is believed that over half of the worlds spam is
now relayed by compromised
That's the key word. Computer users should be educated to safeguard their
pcs. But they won't. You can't expect the software producers to give 100%
protection, users have a responsibility.
Compare the situation with car drivers. They are, in theory, taught the
legal and safe way to drive. Very many think they know better and that they
don't need to follow the guidelines. If they have an accident the car
manufacturers can't be blamed.
4) Trojan diallers, another common technique it to compromise dial up
users so that there normal ISP connection is surreptitiously replaced with
a ISP service operating on a premium rate phone number. I have had a
couple of customers recently who had unexpected phone bills of several
hundred pounds more than they were expecting as a result of this.
I've heard of this and while I'm not smug I'm pleased to have broadband. But
that won't be safe forever. Nothing is.
5) Botnets are often assembled by script kiddies (i.e. relatively
unskilled "hackers" using tools, and virus construction sets built by more
expert developers). They also in themselves have a "value". Botnets are
now openly traded much like any other commodity. So if you were a spammer,
you could buy the services of say 25,000 computers for a spamming campaign
from the botnets "owner".
Yes, they've been around for a long time.
Many of these activities can carry on undetected for months unless
something happens to draw the users attention to the matter. Typically
this is when too the computer gets compromised by too many separate
threats and is devoting so many of its resources to running these, it no
longer does what it's owner wants or expects. Alternatively some other
problem like a browser hijack forces the owner to attempt to scan and
remove the problem, and they stumble over the other stuff as well.
That's why a user should keep a pc clean. My computer is cleaner than my
house ... !
Pretty much all the email worms and viruses that I receive have at some
time been propagated as a result of a someone using IE/OE.
Pretty much isn't exclusive.
How on Earth did you receive them with all your protection? :-^
To be fair, I don't get many - most of the direct threats are removed by
our ISPs before I get to see them. Some spam still gets through, as do
copious bounce messages that indicate someone has got their PC compromised
and it is now sending spam pretending to come from one of our domains!
Nothing is 100% perfect in any sphere of life. Even you. Even me :-)
The few nasties that get as far as the computer run into a compatibility
problem, in that the (Non PC, MS, or Intel) email system is not compatible
with them!
I don't understand that - but I'm willing to be instructed.
Every customer I go to see, who is complaining that their computer is
running slowly or misbehaving in some other way, has a machine loaded
with spyware and trojans that have arrived as a result of a lack of
attention to detail on their part, coupled with use of IE/OE. It is
sometimes difficult to get their attention, but you can change their
software!
Can't you educate them? Or is it in your interest to change their software?
And you're saying that no-one who has whatever alternatives there are
NEVER get such nasties?
"No-one" would be going too far, since even if the alternative software
was invulnerable (which it isn't), the human element it still a weak link.
However I have yet to encounter any PCs that have been thoroughly
compromised in the same way, where the users have not been using IE/OE as
their primary internet suite. I am not sure how much statistical
significance you can draw from this, since if they are savvy enough to
actively seek out alternatives, they are already aware of many of the
risks.
Yes ...
You also have to be aware that an unpatched Win2K / XP system can get
compromised just being connected to the internet with no firewall. This is
irrespective of any software that runs on top for email/web access.
That's what firewalls are for ...
I support the responsible use of MS, it works well for me.
Glad to hear it, so do I. So long as it is not also at the same time doing
sterling service for a spotty teenager in Vladivostok, then carry on.
Or even in Basildon.
Thanks for a full resume of your opinions. They're not wasted.
Mary
|