Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: OT :Fast, decent, low res scans

Richard N. Moyer wrote:

> Well, you have identified two of them.
> On looking at the post header, which reads:
> From: Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 
> Netscape6/6.0

Well, first of all, it just goes to show how much info is transferred 
just in the header.  Is it really necessary for the internet to work to 
have the type of OS I am using and the mailer/browser I use?

> I note Windows 95, Mozilla/5.0. I would have to go back and check a few 
> things, but OutLook Express which shipped bundled with Windows 95 was 
> the most notorious violator of the MIME Standard. All this has been 
> documented. In MS's defense, they claimed that the group that was 
> responsible for OutLook was under "undue" time constraints, and "did not 
> have ample time to complete the job." which they belatedly tried to fix 
> with a series of patches. But never did, and by the time Windows 98 came 
> out, they simply came out with a new version.

I'd never use Outlook Express.  It seems to have a sign on its back 
which reads "Infect me with a virus, please".

As to MS's excuse... have they ever released anything that didn't 
require a patch to fix? (not saying they got to actually producing the 
patch, mind you, just that it required one to fix).



Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.