[ILUG] Amavis

[Peter McEvoy]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:39:57AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Not really.  As a reminder, I said "through exercise of basic logic and
> taking responsibilty for processes I chose to run".  If I were to run
> MS-Windows today, I'd nmap my host before deployment, and then do
> whatever's necessary to either shut off or IP-filter any exposed
> services for which I didn't want to assume responsibility.   If I didn't
> know how to do that, I'd find someone who could.
> 
> "Assume responsibility" has a couple of obvious implications, among
> others:  One is to eschew dangerously designed codebases (e.g., the
> generally pointless RPC portmapper, MSIE, MS Outlook, MS Outlook
> Express).  Another is to have a realistic recovery plan in case any 
> of innumerable things go wrong (current backups, ability to reinstall
> all applications).  Another is to be generally aware of what is going
> on, on your system.

Back in The Real World, people go to pc world, buy a computer, take it
home and after a few hours struggling to figure out which lead goes
where, try to use it to the best of their abilities. They certainly dont
"eschew dangerously designed codebases", as Joe six pack hasnt a baldy
what a dangerously designed codebase is. For a large percentage of the
population, its a herculean task to follow their ISPs instructions on
setting up outlook express to collect their mail.

> While I was running MS-Windows, I was _absolutely_ unwilling to assume
> responsibility for MS Internet Explorer, because it was _notorious_ as a 
> defectively designed program. 

You arent the average user.

> I'm sorry people are unwilling to exercise basic logic and assume
> responsibility for what they choose to run, but that doesn't mean it
> doesn't work.

Look in the system tray of any average user, do you think people know
what the icons in there are, or how they got there?

> To reiterate:  There's nothing conceivably dangerous about opening
> attachments -- which should not be confused with the mindblowing
> stupidity of _executing code_ received over the Internet from random
> strangers.  

Id like to hear you explain the differences in those things to someone
who thinks outlook *is* email.

> I think you'd be amazed how quickly Joe Sixpack would wise up if his
> employer started taking the cost of his computer malfeasances out of his
> salary.

Joe six pack is on the dole (what do you call it, social security?)

Cheers
--
Pete