RE: [xml-dev] Painful USA Today article (was RE: [xml-dev] ANN: RESTTutorial)

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@flightlab.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:56 AM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Painful USA Today article (was RE: 
> [xml-dev] ANN: RESTTutorial)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for being completely off-topic, but this is one
> of my major pet peeves:
> 
> 
> Bullard, Claude L wrote:
> >
> > At the rate of attacks, at some point, Outlook
> > will be the most secure and virus resistant client
> > available.
> 
> It will never be as secure and virus resistant as
> traditional Unix MUAs which HAVE THE GOOD SENSE NOT
> TO AUTOMATICALLY RUN EXECUTABLE PROGRAMS THAT ARRIVE
> IN THE MAIL.
> 

Strong claims. Please back them up. 

Of the major Outlook virus incidents that have occurred in the past few
years can you seriously claim that even 50% of them were a result of the
ability to "AUTOMATICALLY RUN EXECUTABLE PROGRAMS THAT ARRIVE IN THE
MAIL" and not social engineering? 


However you may simply be claiming that the ability for users to receive
or run attachments is a feature that should not be enabled by MUAs in
today's hostile Internet. It is sad, but many seem to believe that such
thinking is the answer. :( 

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
In a fight between you and the world-bet on the world.
 
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 
You assume all risk for your use. (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.