On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 at 00:14:44, Michael Berger wrote:
(ref: <002301c26d85$c777f280$d60e01d9@1und11010841>)
>To come back to the beginning of the discussion: the good news - I am
>convinced that this newsgroup with its fashion of > (or >> or >>>) as state
>of the art of attachments is definitely non-vulnerable for this kind of
>attack.
This is _not_ a newsgroup of course - just a collection of emails
(mailing list).
In my experience, not just this mailing list but most newsgroups (ie non
'bainary' [sic] newsgroups) are very against any 'binary' arriving.
.... for very good reason.
Even the electronic card subscripts and html can cause real havoc for
people using text only systems. (Spike - are you listening?).
The 'fashion' (as you call it ) of '>' is surely the norm.
Not only does it help readability, but aids snipping (and working out
attribution).
Your fashion of not adding these is very much in the minority, and
confusing.
Interestingly whatever mailer you use does not identify itself in the
header, so I guess it cannot be 'that which shall not be named' (8-)#
--
QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
tony@<surname>.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk
Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
