Learned from this thread: 1. That Microsoft Security is a sensitive issue 2. There have been much longer Fish Taco threads 3. There is no spoon.
Action Items: 1. Check out that alt.advocacy.die thing > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:22 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because.... > > > Outlook 2002 ships in a much more secure mode than its > predecessors.[1] > Other than getting people to agree to the obvious; that there were > significant security concerns with previous versions of the > product, what's > the point of this conversation? > > If it's simply a Microsoft flame, there are more appropriate > forums for > it.[2] What is my net takeaway from this conversation? What can one > reasonably expect that I or anyone else has learned as a > result of it? At > least if the discussion had been in haiku or encoded fish > taco recipes there > might be something of value in this thread. > > Send a message or 12 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead, it's a much more > appropriate venue for voicing your concerns and making > specific product > suggestions. > > [1] Insert 4 month discussion on room for improvement which results in > nothing actually coming from it since this isn't the proper forum for > getting those concerns to Microsoft. > [2] alt.microsoft.advocacy or alt.microsoft.die.satan.die perhaps. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 12:01 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because.... > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Chris Scharff wrote: > > >> Why should *I* have to clean up after *Microsoft's* > > mistakes? I paid > > >> good money for their software; it is unreasonable to > > expect it to be > > >> secure in the default configuration? > > > > > > You're just being a troll like Shawn now right? If you're > > not going > > > to add anything useful to the conversation, why even have it? > > > > Alright, I will concede that was a bit heated, but that > > attitude really irks me. > > > > Some customers demand insecure features. Granted. > > Historically, Microsoft has implemented those insecure > > features by default, leading to security problems for > > everyone. Other customers have demanded products designed > > with security in mind. Microsoft blames the problem on > > customers not installing fixes. > > > > Am I the only one who sees the inconsistency with this? > > Why does Microsoft only listen to the demands of customers > > who want insecurity? Why don't the demands of people who > > want more secure products count? > > > > My issue is not with installing updates or correcting > > insecure defaults. I am perfectly capable of doing so, thank > > you very much. My issue is that the problem does not appear > > to be caused simple programming errors, but through a > > continued disregard for security on the part of Microsoft. > > That makes my job harder than it needs to be, and that is not > > something I like. > > > > To use an analogy, when I buy a car, I do not expect to > > have to remove a bolt mounted behind the gas tank to prevent > > the vehicle from exploding when involved in a rear-end impact. > > > > Thankfully, after this latest Nimda fiasco, Microsoft > > appears to be waking up to the fact that producing the > > software equivalent of a Ford Pinto is not a practice that > > instills customer loyalty. > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
