[Coco] Win XP SP2
Stephen H. Fischer
SFischer1 at MindSpring.com
Sun May 30 17:26:55 EDT 2004
As I said before, I am having trouble locating one document.
It may be that I misunderstood the following:
Now, when the Don't Download External HTML Content feature is enabled, the
default behavior of Outlook Express changes so that it does not contact the
Web server to download external content, which prevents the verification of
the e-mail address with the spam originator.
The document this was taken from contains:
As further progress is made, more information will be available to
developers on the Microsoft website at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=20969. The goal for Service Pack 2 is
to build on the Trustworthy Computing efforts of Microsoft that have
previously been applied to Windows Server 2003. For an overview of the
Microsoft Trustworthy Computing initiative, see "Trustworthy Computing
Defined," on the Microsoft website at
Robert Emery wrote:
> (top-posting for brevity)
> I'm still a little confused as to what this SP2 will actually do. It
> looks like you're saying it will put everyone back to text-only, not
> allowing html email content by default rather than relying on a user
> setting it that way.
> I agree, a little color, italics and bold can greatly enhance a message.
> RTF (rich-text) was great for that, and not a security risk like html has
> been. I wonder why that was never included in email's abilities. That's
> another of the various reasons I like the forums Roger has at
> CoCo3.com... you can do those things, and safely.
I reread parts and they allow "RTF" which allows color ... I am a little
confused as I thought that I had to switch to "HTML E-Mail" to use color
which then allows bad things. Need to reread again.
> I still intend to never allow XP in my house. If I were to buy a new PC
> today, the first thing I'd do is wipe the damn hard drive. I'm about sick
> of those hacks at M$ and sure don't need them rooting around my hard
> drive whenever they feel like. Absolute power corrupts absolutley. I
> don't trust 'em.
When I read "The little device driver" I understood what MS had done with
Windows 95 to correct industry wide bad methods.
It was a very hard effort to get everyone else to change their ways and they
did it. You may have a very hard time understanding just what they were able
to do _without_ Absolute power. It was a very big problem with everyone
doing whatever they wanted in any ways they wanted with disastrous results.
Most of the problems with Windows actually are problems with non MS code
doing things in ways that it was not planned for. They are now going to make
it harder to use untrusted code. Again tightening up the security controls
already in Windows by default.
I consider most attacks on MS to be misdirected and belittle the efforts of
so many very good technical people doing their best to produce great
The much maligned integration of IE into the shell was necessary and has
produced oh so many good non duplicated capabilities it is extremely hard to
convey its value.
Actually, any " rooting around my hard drive" by MS would immediately be
recognized by customers and stopped by MS.
The problem is people other than MS doing the rooting. Stopping them is a
goal of "Microsoft Trustworthy Computing initiative".
Stephen H. Fischer <sfischer1 at mindspring.com>
>>> As for XP (ptooey!), Uncle Bill needs to get over himself. We're
>>> changing how they make Windows, not the other way around. So what,
>>> they're gonna make it the way we think it should have been all along,
>>> right? ;-)
>> Yes, much of what is changing (In windows) is just stopping many things
>> that most people today would say are bad things to do.
>> As the Internet was ramping up to what we have today, clearly some things
>> were done in ways that were bad from a security position.
>> They were done with the intent to make a better experience for the
>> users. I like much of what will soon be harder (Perhaps read Impossible)
>> to do. A lot of the Internet users use them. They keep their security
>> settings correct to allow them to trust messages from each other.
>> I believe that most of the mailing lists need only ordinary text and not
>> HTML. But there are times when color will really add to the
>> understanding of messages. Also including pictures at times.
>> Many members of this mailing will disagree with me. But then why are
>> they using *BOLD* /Italic/ _Underlined_ text. I content that they are
>> using the text enhancements for the same reasons I want to use color. On
>> my computer :) ROTFL :-II :D ;o) %-( 8-) ;( 8-O *eg* :( LOL :-r ;-(*)
>> display as graphics. Those are not what I speak of when I suggest
>> pictures, but the person who created the OE enhancement (probably broken
>> in SP2 but I hope not) was trying to meet the human ability to pass
>> information quicker with graphics. We all have heard the saying: A
>> picture is worth a 1000 words.
>> I am willing in the interest of security to give up e-mail messages that
>> automatically pull in graphics and other things. I delete messages from
>> Earthlink and others that consist of only graphics. Some I relook at
>> when I am connected just to pull in the graphics.
>> The advertisers will of course find ways around this. Probably making
>> many e-mail messages much larger by including the graphics in the
>> message, not to be pulled in by a link.
>> We will all see changes. Watch the size of messages get bigger as SP2 is
>> installed world wide.
>> Stephen H. Fischer <sfischer1 at mindspring.com>
More information about the Coco