"Monique Y. Herman" wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:47:02 -0400, Daniel B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned: > > Mike Mueller wrote: > >> > >... > > Similarly, executable formats like Java, which has a comprehensive > > security model, would be better if you ever really did need to deliver > > executable code. (No, I didn't say Java implementations are perfect, > > but there are a lot more layers of security to break through.) > > > > Even then, you send a jar file and most systems won't be able to use it > just by clicking (although I think OS X users can).
Why wouldn't other systems be able to use it? As long as the particular mail client (or system) can be and is configured to recognize Jar files and run the JVM, there shouldn't be a problem getting it to work. > But uh ... java *can* have security features turned on, but in general, > if you run a java app, you have full read/write access to the system, > not to mention full network access. Only if your JVM is configured that way. (Yes, that's the default, but it's fairly easy to change the security policy file, though managing settings for local trusted vs. just-downloaded files probably takes effort.) > Java applets are generally > sandboxed, but java apps are not. Well, of course running Java from a mail client should use the same security settings used for applets in browsers (or Java Web Start applications). Daniel -- Daniel Barclay [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
