> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Ihnat)
> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:28:39 -0500 (CDT)
>
> That's only partially true. The fact of the matter is that mail _will_
> go to root, and there's nothing wrong with that fact _per se_. I do
> NOT want someone else coding their idea of security into tools that I
> know perfectly well how to secure myself with today's toolset. One
> Micro$oft is enough, thank you.
The prevalence of your attitude is part of why the Internet is as unsecure (I
don't care what my spell checker says, people are "insecure", networks are
"unsecure") as it is today. If no programmer coded "their idea of security
into tools", it would be even worse than it is now. It's already a problem
that RedHat ships software that doesn't have all the risky things disabled.
Default shipped software should be secure. Then if you know what you are
doing, you should know how to jump through the necessary hoops to undo that
security. As it stands we're jumping through those hoops backwards and the
many of the people who need to jump through them can't.
I loved my unsecure lisp machine very much, but I have to admit that if LispMs
had gotten as popular as windows, we'd be in a lot of trouble today.
BTW, I also don't understand your comment about Micro$oft. One of the
complaints about microsoft is that they *don't* design in security! If they
did, fewer people would get "I LOVE YOU" email.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ http://www.virCIO.Com
+1 512 432 4046 +1 512 374 0500
4314 Avenue C
O- Austin, TX 78751-3709
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
