"Owain" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
It's all too easy nowadays....
I think that anybody wanting to put graphics in Usenet articles should
have to configure UUCP connections to run with obscure and flakey
modems run over transatlantic links and make them work reliably
without running up a phone bill the size of the national debt.....
That would learn 'em.

Eee, transatlantic phone links, tha was spoilt. When Ah were a lad we 'ad
Usenet sent over on tape by sea mail and thought ourselves lucky :-)

Hadn't pigeons been invented then?

That's what we used inYorkshire, when we weren't racing them.

Mary

Owain

No, Mine are just arrogant and well worth reading.

Regards
Capitol

Gully Foyle wrote:

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:59:22 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



This top posting crap came in because of useless MS Outlook which puts the
cursor at the top.


Firstly, MS Outlook is an email program and cannot be used for Usenet.
I assume you are talking about Outlook Express.

Secondly, Agent (which I use) places the cursor at the top as well.

Thirdly, the correct place for the cursor is at the top, not the
bottom - this allows judicious snipping of irrelevant stuff and the
interjection of comments. I would expect all good newsreaders (and
some rubbish ones) to place the cursor at the top.

Fourthly, top posters are mostly stupid, ignorant, young or a
combination of all three. Their posts are also so rarely worth reading
that it's not worth worth bothering about any of them.

Sorry to criticise Jethro, your answer was correct, but in the wrong place.

Regards
Capitol

JethroUK© wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

[kill-filed]



yeah right - ha ha ha

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
It's all too easy nowadays....
I think that anybody wanting to put graphics in Usenet articles should
have to configure UUCP connections to run with obscure and flakey
modems run over transatlantic links and make them work reliably
without running up a phone bill the size of the national debt.....
That would learn 'em.

Eee, transatlantic phone links, tha was spoilt. When Ah were a lad we 'ad
Usenet sent over on tape by sea mail and thought ourselves lucky :-)

Hadn't pigeons been invented then?

That's what we used inYorkshire, when we weren't racing them.

Was that to rfc-1149 or to rfc-2549?

dennis@home wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message
...


You don't recall the (long) period throughout which Windows would
run *any* kind of executable file it was given by Internet Explorer,
and while IE only bothered looking at the file extension *listed in
the multipart header* to decide whether a file was safe to run?
Not a script in sight, the culprit was the IFRAME.


IE is a web browser not a news reader.
Its the user thats to blame if they run downloaded stuff without thinking.


You must surely know that Windows uses IE for all HTML rendering,
including that found in mail or news. Indeed, Microsoft have claimed
that IE was an integral part of W98 and could not be removed.

The point made above is that the user was not offered the choice
i.e. that a combination of a benign file description in the header
(e.g. 'midi') would cause IE to pass the attachment straight to Windows
for execution, even if it was actually an .exe file, and that Windows
would execute it unconditionally. There was no need for user
intervention, merely displaying the email in OE's preview pane would
execute the file.

Since XP SP2, OE will not display graphics in emails by default, but
that is a very recent innovation. As far as I know, there are no current
bugs in OE which will allow automatic file execution of attachments,
but that doesn't mean none will ever be found. You can't execute text.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:24:09 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
It's all too easy nowadays....
I think that anybody wanting to put graphics in Usenet articles should
have to configure UUCP connections to run with obscure and flakey
modems run over transatlantic links and make them work reliably
without running up a phone bill the size of the national debt.....
That would learn 'em.

Eee, transatlantic phone links, tha was spoilt. When Ah were a lad we 'ad
Usenet sent over on tape by sea mail and thought ourselves lucky :-)

Hadn't pigeons been invented then?

That's what we used inYorkshire, when we weren't racing them.


Already thought of and in use on the internet :-)

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2549.html


--

Gully Foyle wrote:
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:59:22 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



This top posting crap came in because of useless MS Outlook which puts the
cursor at the top.


Firstly, MS Outlook is an email program and cannot be used for Usenet.
I assume you are talking about Outlook Express.


Not wishing to be pedantic, but Outlook can certainly display Usenet
messages. They are not collected by Outlook but by Exchange, with
which Outlook is normally paired in a server-based network.

Certainly it was OE which is responsible for top-posting, due to the
nature of many OE users. Outlook is not often used in a domestic
environment.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:24:09 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
It's all too easy nowadays....
I think that anybody wanting to put graphics in Usenet articles should
have to configure UUCP connections to run with obscure and flakey
modems run over transatlantic links and make them work reliably
without running up a phone bill the size of the national debt.....
That would learn 'em.

Eee, transatlantic phone links, tha was spoilt. When Ah were a lad we 'ad
Usenet sent over on tape by sea mail and thought ourselves lucky :-)

Hadn't pigeons been invented then?

No, the use of pigeons as an underlying physical networking layer wasn't
proposed until 1990:

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1149.txt

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

"Joe" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message
...


You don't recall the (long) period throughout which Windows would
run *any* kind of executable file it was given by Internet Explorer,
and while IE only bothered looking at the file extension *listed in
the multipart header* to decide whether a file was safe to run?
Not a script in sight, the culprit was the IFRAME.


IE is a web browser not a news reader.
Its the user thats to blame if they run downloaded stuff without
thinking.


You must surely know that Windows uses IE for all HTML rendering,
including that found in mail or news. Indeed, Microsoft have claimed
that IE was an integral part of W98 and could not be removed.

The point made above is that the user was not offered the choice
i.e. that a combination of a benign file description in the header
(e.g. 'midi') would cause IE to pass the attachment straight to Windows
for execution, even if it was actually an .exe file, and that Windows
would execute it unconditionally. There was no need for user
intervention, merely displaying the email in OE's preview pane would
execute the file.

Like I said bugs exist.
There were well known (and exploited) bugs in sendmail but there weren't
calls to stop using mail.
There were exploited bugs in bind but we still use DNS.
Why is a bug in an html processor any different?
At least with the html ones there had to be a user unlike the others where
no user was required.

I think you are confusing protocols with implimentation which is a bad thing
IMO.


Since XP SP2, OE will not display graphics in emails by default, but
that is a very recent innovation. As far as I know, there are no current
bugs in OE which will allow automatic file execution of attachments,
but that doesn't mean none will ever be found. You can't execute text.

You *can* execute text as you have stated previously.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
k...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
. uk...

"Joe" wrote in message
...

You don't recall the (long) period throughout which Windows would
run *any* kind of executable file it was given by Internet Explorer,
and while IE only bothered looking at the file extension *listed in
the multipart header* to decide whether a file was safe to run?
Not a script in sight, the culprit was the IFRAME.

IE is a web browser not a news reader.
Its the user thats to blame if they run downloaded stuff without
thinking.

it wasnt necessary to 'run' anything, just visit the page in question.

I don't remember any bug which would run an application by just visiting a
page that used that attack method.
Didn't the user have to click on the link?

It is irrelevant.
There are many applications out there that have or have had bugs in them
that allow/allowed people to hijack the machines.
html doesn't cause this, bad programming does.


Doh! The cause is irrelevant, the point is that html allows these types of
programming errors to be exploited, unlike pure text.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
k...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
. uk...

"Joe" wrote in message
...

You don't recall the (long) period throughout which Windows would
run *any* kind of executable file it was given by Internet Explorer,
and while IE only bothered looking at the file extension *listed in
the multipart header* to decide whether a file was safe to run?
Not a script in sight, the culprit was the IFRAME.

IE is a web browser not a news reader.
Its the user thats to blame if they run downloaded stuff without
thinking.

it wasnt necessary to 'run' anything, just visit the page in question.

I don't remember any bug which would run an application by just visiting
a page that used that attack method.
Didn't the user have to click on the link?

It is irrelevant.
There are many applications out there that have or have had bugs in them
that allow/allowed people to hijack the machines.
html doesn't cause this, bad programming does.


Doh! The cause is irrelevant, the point is that html allows these types of
programming errors to be exploited, unlike pure text.

Like I said it isn't html that allowed it in it was a bug.

You don't know that there aren't bugs in readers of plain text that create
security holes.

It seems a bit silly to be paranoid about a mark-up language and then still
use other applications which aren't bug free (e.g. TCP, mail, widows, Linux,
MacOS, etc.).
I suggest you stop using the internet as there have been and may well still
be bugs in the protocol stacks and applications which could allow harm to
machines.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:24:09 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
It's all too easy nowadays....
I think that anybody wanting to put graphics in Usenet articles should
have to configure UUCP connections to run with obscure and flakey
modems run over transatlantic links and make them work reliably
without running up a phone bill the size of the national debt.....
That would learn 'em.

Eee, transatlantic phone links, tha was spoilt. When Ah were a lad we 'ad
Usenet sent over on tape by sea mail and thought ourselves lucky :-)

Hadn't pigeons been invented then?

That's what we used inYorkshire, when we weren't racing them.



or avin em for uz dinner.


--

..andy

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:13:21 +0000, Joe wrote:

Gully Foyle wrote:
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:59:22 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



This top posting crap came in because of useless MS Outlook which puts the
cursor at the top.


Firstly, MS Outlook is an email program and cannot be used for Usenet.
I assume you are talking about Outlook Express.


Not wishing to be pedantic, but Outlook can certainly display Usenet
messages. They are not collected by Outlook but by Exchange, with
which Outlook is normally paired in a server-based network.

Certainly it was OE which is responsible for top-posting, due to the
nature of many OE users. Outlook is not often used in a domestic
environment.


You can use Outlook without using Exchange.

If you do that, then the News component of OE gets used to do that
bit.


--

..andy

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:52:59 +0000, Jonathan Bryce
wrote:

All new houses must have meters, and where you extend a house, you have to
have a meter.

I didn't

Mark

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
BTW, I have been on Usenet for eons, initially using green
screens.

I remember

You can't remember, as you are senile.

"raden" wrote in message
news
In message , Guy King
writes
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

BTW, I have been on Usenet for eons, initially using green
screens.

I remember you appearing as Adam. What did you call yourself before
then?

Lucifer?

DIMM the bringer of light ?

I really don't think so

Maxie, Dim Lin, the Oriental enchantress, did not turn dark night into day
for you?