On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 09:39:16PM +0100, John Portwin wrote:
> Am I the only one who thinks the policy of blocking Outlook Express is
> unnecessary?
I don't mind it.
> Surely blocking e-mails from anyone not subscribed to the list would be
> far more effective in blocking broken virii scanners, spam etc.
That tends to cause more problems then it solves. Think of the case
where someone is subscribed from one address, say
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and posts from another, say
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the archives for other reasons why.
> Again IMO. It seems a bit harsh, that's all. OE may be broke from a
> standards perspective, but from a day-to-day perspective, it works fine.
I don't use Outlook Express or any Microsoft software, yet I am forced
to deal with all the problems caused by Microsoft's infernal
products. The latest Sircam outbreak on this list swamped my poor
dialup connection. My web pages, hosted on a machine connected to the
Internet with a cable modem, are offline because the cable modem
provider blocked inbound requests for port 80 in response to Code Red;
Code Red is a problem only because Microsoft wouldn't do bounds
checking in a place where it is very obvious such bounds checking is
necessary.
If my neighbor accidently dumped garbage in my yard, I have every
right to demand that the situation be rectified at his expense. My
Microsoft-using Internet neighbors have cause me a great deal of
unwanted difficulties, notwithstanding their general lack of
malice. Ideally they should be made to clean up their disasters, but
it seems very unlikely that such restitution will be made.
This doesn't justify prejudice against all Outlook Express users. But
they need to be somehow made aware that they can and should be held
responsible when they do something that causes problems for everyone
else. Currently their collective opinion is that they are absolved of
all responsibility. If they want a child's responsibilities, they will
also get a child's privileges.
