It makes me laugh out load that Garden Banter shows your
uk.rec.gardening posts on its forums, that there's *nothing* at all you
can do about it and that you lot get *SO* wound up about it.

LOL!

Mungo wrote:

It makes me laugh out load that Garden Banter shows your
uk.rec.gardening posts on its forums, that there's *nothing* at all you
can do about it and that you lot get *SO* wound up about it.

LOL!
I agree. I lurk here, and seldom post, but to read the screamingly
angry posts about Garden Banter "stealing" their deathless prose makes
me laugh. Get real people, this is the Internet. What rules there are
tend to be few and seldom obeyed.

--
He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I
could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far
from being gruntled.
P.G. Wodehouse 1881 -1975

In message ,
lid wrote
It makes me laugh out load that Garden Banter shows your
uk.rec.gardening posts on its forums, that there's *nothing* at all you
can do about it and that you lot get *SO* wound up about it.


There is nothing wrong with garden banter as long as their users are
sure that their email address is not sold on to advertisers and they
are aware of the of the PC security issues associated with their method
of viewing uk.rec.gardening posts.

For anyone that has a hardware firewall in their router, a software
firewall on the PC and a virus checker that is updated on a weekly basis
then there will be no risks with using garden banter.




--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Alan wrote:
In message ,
lid wrote
It makes me laugh out load that Garden Banter shows your
uk.rec.gardening posts on its forums, that there's *nothing* at all
you can do about it and that you lot get *SO* wound up about it.


There is nothing wrong with garden banter as long as their users are
sure that their email address is not sold on to advertisers and they
are aware of the of the PC security issues associated with their
method of viewing uk.rec.gardening posts.

It will make no difference to email collectors for spamming purposes whether
of not the email address appears here or on garden banter. The basic rule
is to munge your email address if it's posted openly anywhere.


For anyone that has a hardware firewall in their router, a software
firewall on the PC and a virus checker that is updated on a weekly
basis then there will be no risks with using garden banter.

? What's the difference if you are connected to the internet via a
mailserver, newsserver, or via a browser? If you allow http of any sort to
get through, you are wide open to malicious scripts. The basic rule (apart
from not opening attached files unless you know what they are) is to read
and post in plain text only. Sure, using a router (and software firewall
for a belt and braces approach) is ok, but it is the antivirus checker which
is the important thing here. Once you have opened your PC ports to http you
have effectively turned off your firewalls.

--
Jeff

Mungo wrote
It makes me laugh out load that Garden Banter shows your
uk.rec.gardening posts on its forums, that there's *nothing* at all you
can do about it and that you lot get *SO* wound up about it.

Wound up? Don't think so.
I just find it strange that anyone would want to post via them and not
direct. Much safer.
But them a lot of people use web based mail and not a mail program on their
own PC.
--
Regards
Bob Hobden

In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

For anyone that has a hardware firewall in their router, a software
firewall on the PC and a virus checker that is updated on a weekly
basis then there will be no risks with using garden banter.

? What's the difference if you are connected to the internet via a
mailserver, newsserver, or via a browser? If you allow http of any sort to
get through, you are wide open to malicious scripts. ...

That's not true. But describing why it's false is beyond the scope
of this group.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from "Bob Hobden" contains these words:

But them a lot of people use web based mail and not a mail program on
their
own PC.

I have a webmail 'account' for when I can't send e-mails from my boxen.
Sometimes If i really need to send something I can nip into an internet
café - which I can't do with this SMTP account.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

In message ,
lid writes
It makes me laugh out load that Garden Banter shows your
uk.rec.gardening posts on its forums, that there's *nothing* at all you
can do about it and that you lot get *SO* wound up about it.

LOL!

Methinks there's a touch of trolling going on, this beautiful St.
Andrew's Day!
--
Gopher .... I know my place!

"Gopher" wrote
after
Mungo writes
It makes me laugh out load that Garden Banter shows your
uk.rec.gardening posts on its forums, that there's *nothing* at all you
can do about it and that you lot get *SO* wound up about it.

LOL!

Methinks there's a touch of trolling going on, this beautiful St. Andrew's
Day!

Absolutely no doubt, but if we then go into a serious discussion without
getting bitchy with one another it rather defeats their purpose. :-)

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

The message
from Martin contains these words:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:25:41 GMT, Rusty_Hinge

wrote:
The message
from "Bob Hobden" contains these words:

But them a lot of people use web based mail and not a mail program on
their
own PC.

I have a webmail 'account' for when I can't send e-mails from my boxen.
Sometimes If i really need to send something I can nip into an internet
café - which I can't do with this SMTP account.

and when you log into a web mail account you leave your user name
password info
on the PC of the Internet Cafe

Unless you tell Firefox to remove it after closing...

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

For anyone that has a hardware firewall in their router, a software
firewall on the PC and a virus checker that is updated on a weekly
basis then there will be no risks with using garden banter.

? What's the difference if you are connected to the internet via a
mailserver, newsserver, or via a browser? If you allow http of any
sort to get through, you are wide open to malicious scripts. ...

That's not true. But describing why it's false is beyond the scope
of this group.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Other than I mistakenly wrote "http" instead of "HTML", of course it's true.

From the first paragraph of
http://home.earthlink.net/~bobbau/email/avoiding-html/:

"Use of HTML formatting has allowed malicious code writers to send highly
damaging e-mail, such as messages that infect your computer with a virus
when you simply read the e-mail. Also note that if you post to a mailing
list or list-serve, it may require you to send in plain text rather than
HTML format."

That's just one of many links you can find by googling "messages in html"
and "malicious".

There would be a lot less successful malware floating round the internet if
plain text mail was used. With Outlook Express, simply viewing an HTML
message in the preview frame is a security risk.

--
Jeff

In message , Jeff Layman
writes
wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

For anyone that has a hardware firewall in their router, a software
firewall on the PC and a virus checker that is updated on a weekly
basis then there will be no risks with using garden banter.

? What's the difference if you are connected to the internet via a
mailserver, newsserver, or via a browser? If you allow http of any
sort to get through, you are wide open to malicious scripts. ...

That's not true. But describing why it's false is beyond the scope
of this group.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Other than I mistakenly wrote "http" instead of "HTML", of course it's true.

From the first paragraph of
http://home.earthlink.net/~bobbau/email/avoiding-html/:

"Use of HTML formatting has allowed malicious code writers to send highly
damaging e-mail, such as messages that infect your computer with a virus
when you simply read the e-mail. Also note that if you post to a mailing
list or list-serve, it may require you to send in plain text rather than
HTML format."

That's just one of many links you can find by googling "messages in html"
and "malicious".

There would be a lot less successful malware floating round the internet if
plain text mail was used. With Outlook Express, simply viewing an HTML
message in the preview frame is a security risk.

That's not quite the same as "If you allow http of any sort to get
through, you are wide open to malicious scripts. ...". Not all email
programs are equally hacker friendly; apart from things like array
overflow attacks (which can happen with straight text as well as with
HTML) the risk depends on how the email program renders HTML - if it
ignores scripting the risks are much lower.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

? What's the difference if you are connected to the internet via a
mailserver, newsserver, or via a browser? If you allow http of any
sort to get through, you are wide open to malicious scripts. ...

That's not true. But describing why it's false is beyond the scope
of this group.

Other than I mistakenly wrote "http" instead of "HTML", of course it's true.

Actually, "http" is more correct than "HTML", but that's a minor point.

I suggest that you don't bother quoting Google at me on IT matters;
even in areas where I am only a second-rank expert (such as this one),
it's only going to make you look foolish.

The HTTP protocol does not require a browser to execute even a script.
Even those of its extensions that do can be run in a secure sandbox
(look up Java on this). And you can even run the whole browser in a
secure sandbox, as I have done on several systems.

But, as I said, the details of how to do that are outside the scope
of this group.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from "Jeff Layman" contains these words:
wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

For anyone that has a hardware firewall in their router, a software
firewall on the PC and a virus checker that is updated on a weekly
basis then there will be no risks with using garden banter.

? What's the difference if you are connected to the internet via a
mailserver, newsserver, or via a browser? If you allow http of any
sort to get through, you are wide open to malicious scripts. ...

That's not true. But describing why it's false is beyond the scope
of this group.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Other than I mistakenly wrote "http" instead of "HTML", of course it's true.

From the first paragraph of
http://home.earthlink.net/~bobbau/email/avoiding-html/:

"Use of HTML formatting has allowed malicious code writers to send highly
damaging e-mail, such as messages that infect your computer with a virus
when you simply read the e-mail. Also note that if you post to a mailing
list or list-serve, it may require you to send in plain text rather than
HTML format."

That's just one of many links you can find by googling "messages in html"
and "malicious".

There would be a lot less successful malware floating round the internet if
plain text mail was used. With Outlook Express, simply viewing an HTML
message in the preview frame is a security risk.

Any mailreader worth its salt won't display HTML - HTML in mail is
against protocols, and AUP.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

"Rusty_Hinge" wrote in message
. uk...

There would be a lot less successful malware floating round the internet
if
plain text mail was used. With Outlook Express, simply viewing an HTML
message in the preview frame is a security risk.

Any mailreader worth its salt won't display HTML - HTML in mail is
against protocols, and AUP.

And MS have significantly improved OE's security since the problems of a few
years ago. The HTML engine is IE, so it's as secure as that, and due to the
high profile of the problems it used to have, IE is now actually pretty
secure. (unless you deliberately break it).

Still, HTML email is an abomination, but that's a different point. (not as
much an abomination as people sending bulletins/newsletters as one massive
JPG "because it looks right", but that's something I'm still working on).

cheers,
clive