[59162] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mobile code security (was Re: rr style scanning of non-customers)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Mon Jun 16 18:24:27 2003
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:26:15 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <g3y902ugku.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Paul Vixie wrote:
> "text based" is not what i'd require. "professional grade" is the right term.
> that can be anything from "xmh" to "eudora" as long as it was written to stand
> up to the worst the internet is capable of delivering to it. "text based" is
> my own preferred crutch but you don't need "text based" to get "professional
> grade".
Is there a reason everyone leaves out poor lil' Mozilla which, while
having a few quirks now and then, far out-performs the M$ code. Let's
see. Better built in filtering (especially with imap), good thread
support, support for simple html to allow partial rendering without
setting off those spy tags, and the list goes on.
> you sure as hell need to be able to look at them, and to know they're present.
> bouncing them or stripping them are signs of extreme ignorance/irresponsibility
> and the people who sell/buy/deploy/whatever the technology that strips or
> bounces mime attachments "because of what they might contain" should get a
> clue.
Ignorance is the commonality of the Internet.
-Jack
