On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 16:18, der.hans wrote:
> Am 25. Sep, 2002 schwätzte Lee Einer so:
> 
> > I think that people should be free to use whatever software they choose.
> > As far as I can see,  the only folks who have to worry about an Outlook
> > user sending an infected e-mail to the group are Windows users without
> > adequate virus protection.  If we advocate free software, as in freedom
> > of speech, it is contradictory (and kind of funny) for us to try and
> > force others to conform to our software preferences, don't you think?
> 
> As long as what they're using conforms to the standards. We should demand
> open standards and formats. If software ( free or proprietary ) causes
> problems with the standards or has specific security issues we could
> consider blocking it until the problem is fixed.
> 
> The problems in this thread have been for the people using the software, not
> the list and have been due to the clients not understanding features
> described in RFCs, so it's their problem ;-). Seriously, though, if the
> clients are munging the signed email, we need to get that fixed.
> 
-----
Yeah, I can see it now...a grassroots campaign originated by the linux
community getting Microsoft to 'fix' their software.

I had previously suggested that it was not accidental that the Outlook
Express MUA handles the 'sign' in this manner. Their Outlook 2000 MUA
handles them properly.

I was also the one that tongue in cheek suggested that PLUG should put a
kill on messages generated by OE. I would (and do) use anything other
than the 'free' browsers & MUA offered by Microsoft because I don't want
to get sucked in but that's my decision. If it weren't for Quickbooks, I
probably wouldn't ever get on my Windows 2000 computer at all and I
think that next year, my accounting migrates to MyBooks or GNUCash.

Craig