Compulsory water metering

oldest first???? - that's a good idea - not - think about it

i cant help that you dont like it - but that doesn't stop it being a FACT!

hence you're mis-guided (unaware of facts)

yeah right - ha ha ha

Do you understand your sig? (i suspect not) - because it applies appropriately here

(posting) -

"....Q7: Why shouldn't I put my comments above the quoted material? A7: ...........When you have just a single question and response, and they're both short, and the discussion doesn't develop any further, it really doesn't make that much difference in practice...."

".... Another problem is that top-posters often word their replies on the assumption that you just read the previous message,,,,,"

Errrrrm - You HAVE! - duh! - and if you haven't - i suggest you do!

Latest News should always come first! the history is there if you can be bothered to read it - and if you cant then it's evidently not of interest

I can only thank god that newspapers / TV and any other news medium doesn't adopt this counter-intuative method of spreading news - They prefer the intuative method of STARTING with the headlines and don't 'first' bore me to death with the ancient history that appeared in the last 15 prints (that i would ALREADY know if i was really interested) before 'eventually' telling me THE NEWS

Not under English law. Sommersett's Case, 20 St. Tr. 1.

A slave from the West Indies brought an action in 1772 under habeas corpus. The judge, Lord Mansfield, found in the slave's favour, ending his judgement with the resounding cry "The Black must be discharged".

Owain

General suggestion - not just to dennis@home: If you use Outlook Express try OE Quotefix. It sorts out several problems and colour codes conversations.

I expect someone else will be along soon to say "If you use Outlook Express you should dump it and get a proper news client..." But I submit this as a halfway option.

IE is a web browser not a news reader. Its the user thats to blame if they run downloaded stuff without thinking.

Web bugs only work if your reader is permitted to load them. There are many ways of tracking you which don't use html BTW.

So you are happy with manually adding tags to words to make them "bold/italicised/etc." but don't like html where the tags are also text strings?

it wasnt necessary to 'run' anything, just visit the page in question.

Did you read the paper tapes or did you have to load them to see what was on them?

I don't remember any bug which would run an application by just visiting a page that used that attack method. Didn't the user have to click on the link?

It is irrelevant. There are many applications out there that have or have had bugs in them that allow/allowed people to hijack the machines. html doesn't cause this, bad programming does.

Hadn't pigeons been invented then?

That's what we used inYorkshire, when we weren't racing them.

Mary

No, Mine are just arrogant and well worth reading.

Regards Capitol

Gully Foyle wrote:

Sorry to criticise Jethro, your answer was correct, but in the wrong place.

Regards Capitol

JethroUK© wrote:

Was that to rfc-1149 or to rfc-2549?

You must surely know that Windows uses IE for all HTML rendering, including that found in mail or news. Indeed, Microsoft have claimed that IE was an integral part of W98 and could not be removed.

The point made above is that the user was not offered the choice i.e. that a combination of a benign file description in the header (e.g. 'midi') would cause IE to pass the attachment straight to Windows for execution, even if it was actually an .exe file, and that Windows would execute it unconditionally. There was no need for user intervention, merely displaying the email in OE's preview pane would execute the file.

Since XP SP2, OE will not display graphics in emails by default, but that is a very recent innovation. As far as I know, there are no current bugs in OE which will allow automatic file execution of attachments, but that doesn't mean none will ever be found. You can't execute text.

Already thought of and in use on the internet :-)

Not wishing to be pedantic, but Outlook can certainly display Usenet messages. They are not collected by Outlook but by Exchange, with which Outlook is normally paired in a server-based network.

Certainly it was OE which is responsible for top-posting, due to the nature of many OE users. Outlook is not often used in a domestic environment.

No, the use of pigeons as an underlying physical networking layer wasn't proposed until 1990:

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1149.txt

Like I said bugs exist. There were well known (and exploited) bugs in sendmail but there weren't calls to stop using mail. There were exploited bugs in bind but we still use DNS. Why is a bug in an html processor any different? At least with the html ones there had to be a user unlike the others where no user was required.

I think you are confusing protocols with implimentation which is a bad thing IMO.

You *can* execute text as you have stated previously.