On 05/23/2007 09:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Please unsuscribe me from the email. > Thanks > Davidha
Please read the bottom of the message: > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Joe Smith wrote: >> >>> I have no information at this point--none--with which to make a rational >>> decision other than to disable the macros because that's "always safe." >> >> Isn't that the default for OOo? >> >>> desired, but severely flawed "industry practice" of easily embedding >>> macros in documents and then dumping the responsibility on the user. >> >> Macros can either be contained within the document, or in a >> separate container that can be given to others as a separate >> file. >> >> I'm not sure how easy it will be to segregate out macros >> into their own container, with the current implementation of >> OOo.In the long term, this would be a more secure option. >> >>> OOo can and should do better--and until a better strategy is available, >>> the default should be all macros off, no questions asked. >> >> Isn't that the current default? >> >> I don't remember configuring that option. Every time I open >> a document that contains a macro, I am asked if I want to >> enable macros. >> >>> C) provide a distinct facility that would allow the macro >>> writer to manipulate the open document, and nothing else, >> >> One practical issue with that approach. >> >> I've got a macro that converts ODF format to Duxbury File >> Format. With your proposal there is nowhere for the output >> of that macro to be placed. >> I've got another macro that opens a file in Duxbury file >> format, converting it to ODF in the process. With your >> proposal that macro could not run. >> >> Note: The ODF to/from macros are not yet functional. I'm >> using it as an example for a very specific reason. >> >>> Maybe these are foolish or technically unrealistic, but there must be >>> something we can do beyond defending the status quo. >> >> I think throwing the macros into a container, that can be >> transmitted to others as an additional file, is the most >> secure solution. It can be done, it does require recoding >> some of the functions within OOo. It might also require a >> change in the specifications of the ODF format. >> >> xan >> >> jonathon >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
