On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 04:36, Rob Unsworth wrote:

> When I first saw this sig I was all for supporting the FSF in this 
> campaign. That was until I read the web page. I found that in part it 
> is self defeating, because it contains the following.
> 
>  "Receiving Word attachments is bad for you because they can carry 
>   viruses........"
> 
> Two paragraphs later
> 
>  "To convert the file to HTML using Word is simple......."
> 
> Apparently the FSF oppose receiving  a virus sent with a Word 
> document, but if the virus is sent via HTML, thats OK.

        I'm missing something here...  In what way would a word macro virus be
converted into anything html?  I think you don't quite know the
technology (or maybe you know something that no one else knows).

> Bill G must have laughed himself to sleep after reading that.

        After reading your message, yes.
 
> The FSF will get no support from me on this one.

        There are many reasons not to like the FSF.  This is not one of them.

-- 
"Khaaaaamaaayyyy, Haaaaamaaaayyyy, HAAAAAAAAA!!!!!"
                -- Goku, 'Dragon Ball'

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to