 |
|
| UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
| Reply |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
Totally OT but I know some people here are experts on this sort of thing. All posts on this group (not currently subscribed to any others) from 26th Feb onwards show no name in the "From" column. If I enable "Show all posts" earlier ones (25th or earlier) are fine. Anybody else seen this (i.e. it's Freeserve) ? Any other ideas before I start re-installing Outlook Express ? (other than use another newsreader :-) Well, you have two problems there. Outlook Express and Freeserve. I would eliminate both of them if I were you ! A |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike" wrote in message ... Totally OT but I know some people here are experts on this sort of thing. All posts on this group (not currently subscribed to any others) from 26th Feb onwards show no name in the "From" column. If I enable "Show all posts" earlier ones (25th or earlier) are fine. Anybody else seen this (i.e. it's Freeserve) ? Any other ideas before I start re-installing Outlook Express ? (other than use another newsreader :-) Try unsubscribing and resubscribing. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike wrote:
Outlook Express and/or Freeserve I guess that's hardcore masochism for you. -- Grunff |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike wrote in message ... Totally OT but I know some people here are experts on this sort of thing. All posts on this group (not currently subscribed to any others) from 26th Feb onwards show no name in the "From" column. If I enable "Show all posts" earlier ones (25th or earlier) are fine. Anybody else seen this (i.e. it's Freeserve) ? Any other ideas before I start re-installing Outlook Express ? (other than use another newsreader :-) Dunno about that problem but you could always start by setting your calendar and clock properly. Bob |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andy Dee" wrote in message ... Mike wrote: Totally OT but I know some people here are experts on this sort of thing. All posts on this group (not currently subscribed to any others) from 26th Feb onwards show no name in the "From" column. If I enable "Show all posts" earlier ones (25th or earlier) are fine. Anybody else seen this (i.e. it's Freeserve) ? Any other ideas before I start re-installing Outlook Express ? (other than use another newsreader :-) Well, you have two problems there. Outlook Express and Freeserve. I would eliminate both of them if I were you ! Nonsense. I'm on OE and have no such problem. In fact I have no problems with OE and am always amused by its smarty pants detractors. Mary A |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob Minchin" wrote in message ... Dunno about that problem but you could always start by setting your calendar and clock properly. Bob That better ? Seems I have something really odd going on here. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"p00kie" wrote in message .uk... "Mike" wrote in message ... Totally OT but I know some people here are experts on this sort of thing. All posts on this group (not currently subscribed to any others) from 26th Feb onwards show no name in the "From" column. If I enable "Show all posts" earlier ones (25th or earlier) are fine. Anybody else seen this (i.e. it's Freeserve) ? Any other ideas before I start re-installing Outlook Express ? (other than use another newsreader :-) Try unsubscribing and resubscribing. Thanks - but unfortunately didn't help. Hmm ?? :-( |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
In an earlier contribution to this discussion, Mike
wrote: Totally OT but I know some people here are experts on this sort of thing. All posts on this group (not currently subscribed to any others) from 26th Feb onwards show no name in the "From" column. If I enable "Show all posts" earlier ones (25th or earlier) are fine. Anybody else seen this (i.e. it's Freeserve) ? Any other ideas before I start re-installing Outlook Express ? (other than use another newsreader :-) Don't know, but why does your clock think it's 3 o'clock tomorrow morning when it's actually only 10 o'clock tonight? -- Cheers, Set Square |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
In fact I have no problems with OE and am always amused by its smarty pants
detractors. Sadly, most of the detractors have perfectly valid points. If you want me to remind you how to switch Windows Scripting Host back on so it can run malicious code without you knowing... -- Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email --- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) --- |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Colin Wilson" wrote in message t... In fact I have no problems with OE and am always amused by its smarty pants detractors. Sadly, most of the detractors have perfectly valid points. If you want me to remind you how to switch Windows Scripting Host back on so it can run malicious code without you knowing... No thank you. I'm in control. Mary |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you want me to remind you how to switch Windows Scripting Host back on
so it can run malicious code without you knowing... No thank you. I'm in control. Care to spread the secret - i`ve had a hellish few days in work :-} -- Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email --- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) --- |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Outlook Express and/or Freeserve funny
Totally OT but I know some people here are experts on this sort of thing.
All posts on this group (not currently subscribed to any others) from 26th Feb onwards show no name in the "From" column. If I enable "Show all posts" earlier ones (25th or earlier) are fine. Anybody else seen this (i.e. it's Freeserve) ? Any other ideas before I start re-installing Outlook Express ? (other than use another newsreader :-) |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
In fact I have no problems with OE and am always amused by its smarty pants detractors. That is a bit unfair, given that we did explain in some detail *why* OE has more than it fair share of detractors, before you went off on your hols IIRC. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: In fact I have no problems with OE and am always amused by its smarty pants detractors. That is a bit unfair, given that we did explain in some detail *why* OE has more than it fair share of detractors, before you went off on your hols IIRC. I speak as I find. I repeat, I have no problems with OE. And we don't have hols. Mary -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 05:17:46 UTC, John Rumm
wrote: Mary Fisher wrote: In fact I have no problems with OE and am always amused by its smarty pants detractors. That is a bit unfair, given that we did explain in some detail *why* OE has more than it fair share of detractors, before you went off on your hols IIRC. I actually think that Mary's response was 'smarty pants' in its own right, I'm afraid. -- Bob Eager begin a new life...dump Windows! |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mary Fisher
wrote: I'm in control. Blissful ignorance. :-) -- AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
That is a bit unfair, given that we did explain in some detail *why* OE has more than it fair share of detractors, before you went off on your hols IIRC. I speak as I find. I repeat, I have no problems with OE. Sorry, I thought we had been through this before Christmas... Many folks have no problem with OE, however they unwittingly *cause* them for thousands of others as a result of malicious software they end up running as a result of using OE. I am not suggesting that this is the case with your computer, so don't think I am having a go at you personally, just highlighting that because you have "no problem with OE", it is not safe to extrapolate that to a broader class of users. And we don't have hols. Your trip to Wales over Christmas then... -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... Sorry, I thought we had been through this before Christmas... Your memory is better than mine :-) Many folks have no problem with OE, however they unwittingly *cause* them for thousands of others as a result of malicious software they end up running as a result of using OE. And no other systems cause problems? I am not suggesting that this is the case with your computer, so don't think I am having a go at you personally, just highlighting that because you have "no problem with OE", it is not safe to extrapolate that to a broader class of users. Well, you can protect yourself by blocking me. And we don't have hols. Your trip to Wales over Christmas then... A visit to a daughter's farm. Believe me, it was no holiday ... Mary |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
Many folks have no problem with OE, however they unwittingly *cause* them for thousands of others as a result of malicious software they end up running as a result of using OE. And no other systems cause problems? Not in the same way, and certainly not on the same scale, no. -- Grunff |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... Sorry, I thought we had been through this before Christmas... Your memory is better than mine :-) Ah, well have a look on you hard drive, you will have a folder where you stored all the responses that you planed to read when you got back, sorry don't know what you called the folder ;-) See: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...3fa45 fb576b9 http://tinyurl.com/5lfzo Many folks have no problem with OE, however they unwittingly *cause* them for thousands of others as a result of malicious software they end up running as a result of using OE. And no other systems cause problems? In reality yes, but usually as a result of users doing something daft. The lions share of compromised systems that I see (running at several per week at the moment) got that way through IE/OE security flaws. I am not trying to paint a black and white argument here of "IE/OE bad", "anything else good". IE/OE can be used safely with care and lots of added third party protection (and previous threads would suggest you have this). You can and will get problems with other programs, but you have to work harder at it (many compromises require ActiveX controls, and browser helper objects for example that you typically need IE to run). I am not suggesting that this is the case with your computer, so don't think I am having a go at you personally, just highlighting that because you have "no problem with OE", it is not safe to extrapolate that to a broader class of users. Well, you can protect yourself by blocking me. Ah, well now you have hit the nail on the head. That is why the spammers love relaying spam via compromised windows boxes. 100M spams flowing from a single well connected host is easy to identify/filter/ block/blacklist/litigate against, but 100 spams from 1M different hosts can't be blocked in the same way. (Current estimates put this route as the source of over 2/3rds of all spam, and almost all (Distributed) Denial of Service attacks). -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Rumm" wrote in message news:4225f43e$0$23770 Sorry, I thought we had been through this before Christmas... Your memory is better than mine :-) Ah, well have a look on you hard drive, you will have a folder where you stored all the responses that you planed to read when you got back, sorry don't know what you called the folder ;-) Unoriginally 'DIY'. It's in the Inbox folder which in turn is in the OE folder :-))))) See: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...3fa45 fb576b9 http://tinyurl.com/5lfzo No need, I'm better organised than that :-) Many folks have no problem with OE, however they unwittingly *cause* them for thousands of others as a result of malicious software they end up running as a result of using OE. And no other systems cause problems? In reality yes, but usually as a result of users doing something daft. And do you criticise their users? The lions share of compromised systems that I see (running at several per week at the moment) got that way through IE/OE security flaws. And the mouse's share? I am not trying to paint a black and white argument here of "IE/OE bad", "anything else good". But many people seem to and that's my gripe. I believe that nobody's perfect and that if you take part in any activity you have to allow for that - and imperfect (i.e. [sorry!] human) usage of that system. Consider driving for instance. IE/OE can be used safely with care and lots of added third party protection (and previous threads would suggest you have this). You can and will get problems with other programs, I can't think of any to date. But perhaps I don't want to run those programs .... but you have to work harder at it (many compromises require ActiveX controls, and browser helper objects for example that you typically need IE to run). I'm sure you're right. I don't understand such techtalk, being only a white haired old woman ... I am not suggesting that this is the case with your computer, so don't think I am having a go at you personally, just highlighting that because you have "no problem with OE", it is not safe to extrapolate that to a broader class of users. Well, you can protect yourself by blocking me. Ah, well now you have hit the nail on the head. That is why the spammers love relaying spam via compromised windows boxes. 100M spams flowing from a single well connected host is easy to identify/filter/ block/blacklist/litigate against, but 100 spams from 1M different hosts can't be blocked in the same way. I honestly believe that the more impervious a system is the more challenging it will become to those intent on violating it. (Current estimates put this route as the source of over 2/3rds of all spam, and almost all (Distributed) Denial of Service attacks). **** happens, we clean it up. Mary |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
Many folks have no problem with OE, however they unwittingly *cause* them for thousands of others as a result of malicious software they end up running as a result of using OE. And no other systems cause problems? In reality yes, but usually as a result of users doing something daft. And do you criticise their users? Generally no, unless they fall into the small minority of users who do these things maliciously (i.e. to cause hassle for their employer etc). The best course I find is to try and educate, and where possible suggest alternative working practices and/or software. The lions share of compromised systems that I see (running at several per week at the moment) got that way through IE/OE security flaws. And the mouse's share? The classic opening an infected email must rank at the top. Other vectors like downloading programs and running without checking etc. I am not trying to paint a black and white argument here of "IE/OE bad", "anything else good". But many people seem to and that's my gripe. I believe that nobody's perfect and that if you take part in any activity you have to allow for that - and imperfect (i.e. [sorry!] human) usage of that system. Consider driving for instance. Many people sound like they are being black and white, but in many cases this is simply because they assume (incorrectly) that everyone is aware of these issues. I agree, none of us are perfect. Would you feel safe in a car knowing that there was only one bolt holding on each wheel, the tyres were bald, and there is a detonate in the fuel tank waiting to go off should you corner too quickly or run into something? Many folks will do the IT equivalent without even realising. IE/OE can be used safely with care and lots of added third party protection (and previous threads would suggest you have this). You can and will get problems with other programs, I can't think of any to date. But perhaps I don't want to run those programs ... Sorry, I did not make that clear... I was suggesting that you need third party programs for protection (e.g. a good selection would be a virus scanner (AVG), AdAware, Spywareblaster, SpybotSD1.3, (possibly ZoneAlarm depending on platform)) to keep safe. (All of these are available for personal use free. Given that and care you can be safe with IE/OE. I would also recommend you use them with _any_ web/email software). If you don't have at least AdAware I would very strongly suggest downloading a copy and running it. (http://www.lavasoftusa.com/) The "will get problems with other programs" comment was saying that even if you ditch OE, and only use IE when forced to, it does not guarantee you safety. There are still some classes of attack that will work in browsers like Mozilla or Firefox (Phishing scams for example). but you have to work harder at it (many compromises require ActiveX controls, and browser helper objects for example that you typically need IE to run). I'm sure you're right. I don't understand such techtalk, being only a white haired old woman ... Odd that, I had you pictured as Silver Haired ;-) Translations, ActiveX: IE has the ability to download and execute code contained in an ActiveX control. This is just library of executable functions lumped into a wrapper that makes it easy to integrate these functions into a web browser environment. It allows a web server to pass programs to be run on your computer to you to (in theory) enhance the functionality of a web page. A good example would be when you visit the Microsoft Windows Update site, it downloads an ActiveX that then compares the versions of software on your computer with the latest versions and passes this information back to the web server so it can produce the list of patches you need. This is not unlike Java which is a cross platform technology (i.e. runs on many different computers and OSes, not just windows and Intel/AMD x86) that allows similar things. However there is a critical difference. Java programs run in a virtual machine (i.e. what they sometimes call a "sandbox"). While not fool proof, it does limit the amount of control that Java programs can have over the computer running the virtual machine. ActiveX however has none of this sophistication, once the code is on the computer it runs with the same scope, privilege and capabilities as any other program you care to run or any action you may care to take. IE has grown a huge layer of complexity with different "Zones" to control when and where ActiveX controls can do their stuff. Needless to say many of the exploits on IE rely on circumventing these Zones to trick it into downloading a control and running it without asking, because it appears to be "trusted" or from a trusted zone. A browser like Firefox will not run ActiveX controls. This is why web pages that depend on them will not work correctly on Firefox, and you still require IE. Browser Helper Objects: These are libraries of executable code that can be patched into IE to extend its functionality. For example if you view a PDF document in IE, Adobe Acrobat Reader will open up inside your browser as an extension of it. This is a BHO in action. There are similar facilities in most browsers, but IE seems to acquire the things without informed intervention of the user in many cases. (Many enhanced search bars for IE fall into this category). There is not direct functionality built into IE that lets to view and control these things however. You will need to get a copy of "HijackThis", or poke about in the registry to find out what you have hooking your browser. I am not suggesting that this is the case with your computer, so don't think I am having a go at you personally, just highlighting that because you have "no problem with OE", it is not safe to extrapolate that to a broader class of users. Well, you can protect yourself by blocking me. Ah, well now you have hit the nail on the head. That is why the spammers love relaying spam via compromised windows boxes. 100M spams flowing from a single well connected host is easy to identify/filter/ block/blacklist/litigate against, but 100 spams from 1M different hosts can't be blocked in the same way. I honestly believe that the more impervious a system is the more challenging it will become to those intent on violating it. For some this will be true. It is a classic case of "know your enemy". For 99% of the time however we are dealing with "mass market" compromises here. Unless I know there is some information of real value to me on your computer it is not worth me spending any more time or effort on compromising it than I would on any other. Most hacks of this type are robotic. Software will scan blocks of IP addresses looking for vulnerable unpatched systems, emails will be sent out, and malicious web sites created to ensnare computers in large numbers. If these techniques do not get yours, then that is not a problem since there are millions of others to get instead. If however you enemy has targeted you personally, and they have the resources, then they will gain entry... probably by non technical methods. (Current estimates put this route as the source of over 2/3rds of all spam, and almost all (Distributed) Denial of Service attacks). **** happens, we clean it up. Do you include yourself in that "we" ? -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Grunff" wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: Many folks have no problem with OE, however they unwittingly *cause* them for thousands of others as a result of malicious software they end up running as a result of using OE. And no other systems cause problems? Not in the same way, and certainly not on the same scale, no. Not even "Google Groups" ? |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... I am not trying to paint a black and white argument here of "IE/OE bad", "anything else good". But many people seem to and that's my gripe. I believe that nobody's perfect and that if you take part in any activity you have to allow for that - and imperfect (i.e. [sorry!] human) usage of that system. Consider driving for instance. Many people sound like they are being black and white, but in many cases this is simply because they assume (incorrectly) Hurrah! that everyone is aware of these issues. You've said it :-) I agree, none of us are perfect. Would you feel safe in a car knowing that there was only one bolt holding on each wheel, the tyres were bald, and there is a detonate in the fuel tank waiting to go off should you corner too quickly or run into something? Many folks will do the IT equivalent without even realising. Ah but you were suggesting that the problem was the other drivers - er - other pc users who were causing problems. IE/OE can be used safely with care and lots of added third party protection (and previous threads would suggest you have this). You can and will get problems with other programs, I can't think of any to date. But perhaps I don't want to run those programs ... Sorry, I did not make that clear... I was suggesting that you need third party programs for protection (e.g. a good selection would be a virus scanner (AVG), AdAware, Spywareblaster, SpybotSD1.3, (possibly ZoneAlarm depending on platform)) to keep safe. Got 'em all. And run 'em. (All of these are available for personal use free. Given that and care you can be safe with IE/OE. I would also recommend you use them with _any_ web/email software). If you don't have at least AdAware I would very strongly suggest downloading a copy and running it. (http://www.lavasoftusa.com/) I've had it for ages. The "will get problems with other programs" comment was saying that even if you ditch OE, and only use IE when forced to, it does not guarantee you safety. There are still some classes of attack that will work in browsers like Mozilla or Firefox (Phishing scams for example). Oh I've had those, threy don't bother me because I ifnore them. Mostly they're ditched without even opening, they're pretty obvious. but you have to work harder at it (many compromises require ActiveX controls, and browser helper objects for example that you typically need IE to run). I'm sure you're right ... hums I'm sure you're right. I don't understand such techtalk, being only a white haired old woman ... Odd that, I had you pictured as Silver Haired ;-) I thought I'd said grey-haired ... Translations, ActiveX: IE has the ability to download and execute code contained in an ActiveX control. This is just library of executable functions lumped into a wrapper that makes it easy to integrate these functions into a web browser environment. It allows a web server to pass programs to be run on your computer to you to (in theory) enhance the functionality of a web page. A good example would be when you visit the Microsoft Windows Update site, it downloads an ActiveX that then compares the versions of software on your computer with the latest versions and passes this information back to the web server so it can produce the list of patches you need. This is not unlike Java which is a cross platform technology (i.e. runs on many different computers and OSes, not just windows and Intel/AMD x86) that allows similar things. However there is a critical difference. Java programs run in a virtual machine (i.e. what they sometimes call a "sandbox"). While not fool proof, it does limit the amount of control that Java programs can have over the computer running the virtual machine. ActiveX however has none of this sophistication, once the code is on the computer it runs with the same scope, privilege and capabilities as any other program you care to run or any action you may care to take. IE has grown a huge layer of complexity with different "Zones" to control when and where ActiveX controls can do their stuff. Needless to say many of the exploits on IE rely on circumventing these Zones to trick it into downloading a control and running it without asking, because it appears to be "trusted" or from a trusted zone. A browser like Firefox will not run ActiveX controls. This is why web pages that depend on them will not work correctly on Firefox, and you still require IE. Browser Helper Objects: These are libraries of executable code that can be patched into IE to extend its functionality. For example if you view a PDF document in IE, Adobe Acrobat Reader will open up inside your browser as an extension of it. This is a BHO in action. There are similar facilities in most browsers, but IE seems to acquire the things without informed intervention of the user in many cases. (Many enhanced search bars for IE fall into this category). There is not direct functionality built into IE that lets to view and control these things however. You will need to get a copy of "HijackThis", or poke about in the registry to find out what you have hooking your browser. Lovely ... I am not suggesting that this is the case with your computer, so don't think I am having a go at you personally, just highlighting that because you have "no problem with OE", it is not safe to extrapolate that to a broader class of users. Well, you can protect yourself by blocking me. Ah, well now you have hit the nail on the head. That is why the spammers love relaying spam via compromised windows boxes. 100M spams flowing from a single well connected host is easy to identify/filter/ block/blacklist/litigate against, but 100 spams from 1M different hosts can't be blocked in the same way. I honestly believe that the more impervious a system is the more challenging it will become to those intent on violating it. For some this will be true. It is a classic case of "know your enemy". For 99% of the time however we are dealing with "mass market" compromises here. Unless I know there is some information of real value to me on your computer it is not worth me spending any more time or effort on compromising it than I would on any other. Most hacks of this type are robotic. Software will scan blocks of IP addresses looking for vulnerable unpatched systems, emails will be sent out, and malicious web sites created to ensnare computers in large numbers. If these techniques do not get yours, then that is not a problem since there are millions of others to get instead. If however you enemy has targeted you personally, and they have the resources, then they will gain entry... probably by non technical methods. (Current estimates put this route as the source of over 2/3rds of all spam, and almost all (Distributed) Denial of Service attacks). Yes. **** happens, we clean it up. Do you include yourself in that "we" ? Yes. In the Real World you can't escape it. That's my point. Mary -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
I was suggesting that you need third party programs for protection (e.g. a good selection would be a virus scanner (AVG), AdAware, Spywareblaster, SpybotSD1.3, (possibly ZoneAlarm depending on platform)) to keep safe. Got 'em all. And run 'em. Which sort of makes the point very well. I read news using a text mode newsreader on a Linux box. This eliminates the need for just about *all* of that extra software you are running and maintaining. In my opinion my newsreader is also a much better newsreader than OE but that isn't really the point. I do much less work to keep safe. (N.B. the Linux system is behind a well maintained firewall) -- Chris Green |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: I was suggesting that you need third party programs for protection (e.g. a good selection would be a virus scanner (AVG), AdAware, Spywareblaster, SpybotSD1.3, (possibly ZoneAlarm depending on platform)) to keep safe. Got 'em all. And run 'em. Which sort of makes the point very well. I read news using a text mode newsreader on a Linux box. This eliminates the need for just about *all* of that extra software you are running and maintaining. In my opinion my newsreader is also a much better newsreader than OE but that isn't really the point. I do much less work to keep safe. It must be lovely to be perfect. (N.B. the Linux system is behind a well maintained firewall) -- Chris Green |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: I was suggesting that you need third party programs for protection (e.g. a good selection would be a virus scanner (AVG), AdAware, Spywareblaster, SpybotSD1.3, (possibly ZoneAlarm depending on platform)) to keep safe. Got 'em all. And run 'em. Which sort of makes the point very well. I read news using a text mode newsreader on a Linux box. This eliminates the need for just about *all* of that extra software you are running and maintaining. In my opinion my newsreader is also a much better newsreader than OE but that isn't really the point. I do much less work to keep safe. It must be lovely to be perfect. No not perfect, just lazy! :-) I wasn't trying to show how clever I am, rather that there are much *easier* ways than using OE. It also has other benefits which are probably more relevent to my situation than being of general use so I haven't listed them as they didn't seem relevant to the present discussion. -- Chris Green |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... I wasn't trying to show how clever I am, rather that there are much *easier* ways than using OE. Well I'm no genius but I find OE straighforward, I can't understand why anyone should have difficulty with it ... Mary |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
wrote in message ... I wasn't trying to show how clever I am, rather that there are much *easier* ways than using OE. Well I'm no genius but I find OE straighforward, I can't understand why anyone should have difficulty with it ... .... but you listed a whjole lot of other software that you need to install and run in order to be safe from the vulnerabilities that you have as a consequence of using OE. I was just saying that if you do a bit of lateral thinking there are other ways which, overall, are in fact rather easier. -- Chris Green |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Old Bill wrote:
wrote: Mary Fisher wrote: I was suggesting that you need third party programs for protection (e.g. a good selection would be a virus scanner (AVG), AdAware, Spywareblaster, SpybotSD1.3, (possibly ZoneAlarm depending on platform)) to keep safe. Got 'em all. And run 'em. Which sort of makes the point very well. I read news using a text mode newsreader on a Linux box. This eliminates the need for just about *all* of that extra software you are running and maintaining. In my opinion my newsreader is also a much better newsreader than OE but that isn't really the point. I do much less work to keep safe. (N.B. the Linux system is behind a well maintained firewall) Blimey, that takes me back.. thats all we had to use on Usenet 13 years ago. A text based reader running on Unix ... Those were the days .... and you think the 'modern' approach is better? What advantages does a GUI application give you when reading newsgroups? My newsreader is just as 'advanced' as any GUI one (more than most), it has all the bells and whistles that one could ever want. It's still being actively developed so keeps abreast of changes. Its major advantage for me is that I run it on a remote Linux box that I can connect to from wherever I happen to be. Thus I can use the same news program and configuration from home, work, friends' houses or whatever. I don't lose track of threads etc. wherever I am. In addition I can use the same editor as I use for everything else I do and thus don't have to use an unfamiliar (and/or rather feeble) editor to compose messages. Finally if/when I want I can use a mouse to select threads and messages, although it's a text mode newsreader it is mouse aware. -- Chris Green |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: wrote in message ... I wasn't trying to show how clever I am, rather that there are much *easier* ways than using OE. Well I'm no genius but I find OE straighforward, I can't understand why anyone should have difficulty with it ... ... but you listed a whjole lot of other software that you need to install and run in order to be safe from the vulnerabilities that you have as a consequence of using OE. I didn't. Somebody else did that. I was just saying that if you do a bit of lateral thinking there are other ways which, overall, are in fact rather easier. It's easier to stick with what I have. I'm not of the "If it ain't broke break it" school. Mary -- Chris Green |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: wrote in message ... I wasn't trying to show how clever I am, rather that there are much *easier* ways than using OE. Well I'm no genius but I find OE straighforward, I can't understand why anyone should have difficulty with it ... ... but you listed a whjole lot of other software that you need to install and run in order to be safe from the vulnerabilities that you have as a consequence of using OE. I didn't. Somebody else did that. I was just saying that if you do a bit of lateral thinking there are other ways which, overall, are in fact rather easier. It's easier to stick with what I have. I'm not of the "If it ain't broke break it" school. But OE IS broke, Mary, always has been and always will be. Microsnot: Deigned to sell, but not to work. Mary -- Chris Green |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: wrote in message ... I wasn't trying to show how clever I am, rather that there are much *easier* ways than using OE. Well I'm no genius but I find OE straighforward, I can't understand why anyone should have difficulty with it ... ... but you listed a whjole lot of other software that you need to install and run in order to be safe from the vulnerabilities that you have as a consequence of using OE. I didn't. Somebody else did that. .... but you then said something like "Yes, I do all that", so you *do* have to make that effort. I was just saying that if you do a bit of lateral thinking there are other ways which, overall, are in fact rather easier. It's easier to stick with what I have. I'm not of the "If it ain't broke break it" school. OK, I've no problem with that, it's where I am too, I just started reading newsgroups before IE (or Windows for that matter) was invented. -- Chris Green |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
It's easier to stick with what I have. I'm not of the "If it ain't broke break it" school. My original coment was not intending to suggest that *you* should change your software. You have in place sufficient protection, and have enough knowledge to use it safely, not only for you, but also to render it safe from potential consequences that could affect others. In many many cases however this is sadly not the case. Let me tell you a story: Somone buys their nice new PC, they stick in the CD from from some high profile ISP and install. Ten mins later they are browsing the web and emailing their friends! Ten mins after that, thay have ended up at a couple of doubtfull web sites by accident while searching for something else, and they are now running several spyware programs, and, they have acquired a trojan downloader program. In the weeks to come the computer may start doing odd things like taking them to odd start pages and porn sites, poping up loads of adds, and getting slower and slower. In the background their shiny new computer is blatting out junk mail. Perhaps a keylogger is recording all their first steps in online shopping and banking! Hopefully something will be downloaded by the trojan downloader that will kill the computer! Then they will seek help. Hopefully they will phone someone who knows how to fix it. Mr or Mrs fixit will probably make some suggestions regarding what software they need to go and download to keep them safe. Hopefully they won't then be retelling the story to a friend who says "Well I run OE and IE all the time, and never have any problems! I can't see what all the fuss is about, its just a bunch of MS hating geeks getting their knickers in a twist") Plausable? (and before you answer, note that I am still trying to fix the fifth compromised PC someone phoned me about in the last fortnight!) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:10:54 UTC, wrote: ... but you then said something like "Yes, I do all that", so you *do* have to make that effort. And the problem is that the innocents who *do* have compromised machines cause major problems for others, not just themselves. OK, I've no problem with that, it's where I am too, I just started reading newsgroups before IE (or Windows for that matter) was invented. rn ?? No, I use tin, it's one of the few text mode newsreaders still actively developed, the only other as far as I know is slrn. -- Chris Green |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:16:58 UTC, wrote: rn ?? No, I use tin, it's one of the few text mode newsreaders still actively developed, the only other as far as I know is slrn. I meant when you started...I've forgotten what I used back in 1982 or thereabouts. I sort of pottered around rn, trn and tin, tin has been around for a *long* time. This would have been around 1987 as I worked abroad from 1980 to 1987 and 'discovered the internet' when I started working as a contractor at BT in 1987. -- Chris Green |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:16:58 UTC, wrote: rn ?? No, I use tin, it's one of the few text mode newsreaders still actively developed, the only other as far as I know is slrn. I meant when you started...I've forgotten what I used back in 1982 or thereabouts. RN it was, and rubbish it was too. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| eScrew OWNS YOU!!! | Metalworking | |||
| eScrew | Woodworking | |||
| Funny story about metal | Metalworking | |||
| Funny story about repair | Electronics Repair | |||
Linear Mode
