Upgrade to Firefox 1.0.1?

I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 1.1 
comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
0
tenplay
2/25/2005 5:49:46 PM
netscape.mozilla.general 7061 articles. 0 followers. Follow

107 Replies
642 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 25

tenplay wrote:
> I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
> there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 1.1 
> comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
> version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.

a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
but it will probably work if you just install on top.

-scratch
0
scratch
2/25/2005 5:55:26 PM
scratch wrote:
> tenplay wrote:
> 
>> I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>> there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>> 1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>> version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
> 
> 
> a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
> have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
> but it will probably work if you just install on top.
> 
> -scratch

I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people 
having trouble with this one if they do not.

Lee
0
Leonidas
2/25/2005 6:20:24 PM
On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:

> > a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing,
> > have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first,
> > but it will probably work if you just install on top.
> >
> > -scratch
>
> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
> having trouble with this one if they do not.

That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
0
Howard
2/25/2005 6:44:17 PM
In message <cvnrqb$5l22@ripley.netscape.com> "Howard Brazee"
<howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>
>> > a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing,
>> > have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first,
>> > but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>> >
>> > -scratch
>>
>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>> having trouble with this one if they do not.
>
>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.

Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?


-- 
A well-dressed man walks into a bar and asks a woman to sleep
with him for $1M. The woman is excited and she gives immediate
consent: "Of course I'll sleep with you!". 
Then the man asks, "will you sleep with me for $5?". The woman
indignantly replies, "Of course not! What do you think I am?".
The man replies, "We've already established what you are; now
we're merely haggling over the price."
0
DevilsPGD
2/25/2005 7:06:29 PM
scratch wrote:
> tenplay wrote:
> 
>> I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>> there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>> 1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>> version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
> 
> 
> a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
> have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
> but it will probably work if you just install on top.
> 
> -scratch
0
tenplay
2/25/2005 7:10:38 PM
On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> >> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
> >> having trouble with this one if they do not.
> >
> >That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>
> Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?

Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs more than
spoofing does.
0
Howard
2/25/2005 7:10:40 PM
On 25.02.2005 12:44, Howard Brazee wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
> 
>> > a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing,
>> > have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first,
>> > but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>> >
>> > -scratch
>>
>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>> having trouble with this one if they do not.
> 
> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.

But there IS an excellent reason to upgrade if you follow the standard
recommended procedure of uninstalling first.


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/25/2005 9:57:15 PM
On 25.02.2005 13:10, Howard Brazee wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> 
>> >> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>> >> having trouble with this one if they do not.
>> >
>> >That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>
>> Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
> 
> Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs more than
> spoofing does.

Not if you follow the well established uninstall/install recommended
procedure.


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/25/2005 9:58:16 PM
In message <cvntbr$6sp1@ripley.netscape.com> "Howard Brazee"
<howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>
>On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> >> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>> >> having trouble with this one if they do not.
>> >
>> >That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>
>> Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
>
>Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs more than
>spoofing does.

First off, I haven't heard of any upgrade problems other then the one
documented in the release notes -- Specifically, people who go back and
forth between ZIP and installer builds need to take special precautions.

In my case I always use the zip builds, so I just delete the old program
directory, unzip the new one and I'm in business.  It's been a long time
since I started a new profile, and I've upgraded since well before 1.0
without ever running into any problems other then what was documented in
the release notes.


-- 
No user-serviceable parts
0
DevilsPGD
2/25/2005 9:59:53 PM
On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> scratch wrote:
>> tenplay wrote:
>> 
>>> I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>> there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>> 1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>> version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>> 
>> 
>> a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>> have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>> but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>> 
>> -scratch

The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
subject in the body of your post, thanks.

Short answer:

Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
regular means.

Long answer:

A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
the packets are coming from that host.

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/25/2005 10:02:20 PM
Leonidas Jones wrote:
> scratch wrote:
> 
>> tenplay wrote:
>>
>>> I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>> there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>> 1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>> version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>> have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>> but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>
>> -scratch
> 
> 
> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people 
> having trouble with this one if they do not.
> 

Oops.  Too late.  Installed over the top of 1.0 now.  Seems okay.
0
killjoy
2/25/2005 11:17:55 PM
DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <cvntbr$6sp1@ripley.netscape.com> "Howard Brazee"
> <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>>>>>having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>
>>>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>
>>>Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
>>
>>Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs more than
>>spoofing does.
> 
> 
> First off, I haven't heard of any upgrade problems other then the one
> documented in the release notes -- Specifically, people who go back and
> forth between ZIP and installer builds need to take special precautions.
> 
> In my case I always use the zip builds, so I just delete the old program
> directory, unzip the new one and I'm in business.  It's been a long time
> since I started a new profile, and I've upgraded since well before 1.0
> without ever running into any problems other then what was documented in
> the release notes.
> 
> 

Actually further review seems to point to some profile related issues, 
and easily solved. Its till best to uninstall first.

Lee
0
Leonidas
2/25/2005 11:36:26 PM
scratch wrote:

> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>> On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of 
>>>>> people having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>
>>>> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>
>>> Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
>>
>> Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs more 
>> than spoofing does.
>
> it takes all of 30 seconds.  if 30 seconds of your time is worth more 
> than the security of your bank account, by all means stick with 1.0.

My concern is having to reinstall all the extensions or extensions that 
don't work with 1.0.1. Resolving that will be much more than 30 seconds 
of my time...
-- 
I'd rather be in Biscuit City with my banjo in my hands - Gordon Lightfoot
0
Andrew
2/26/2005 12:21:20 AM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>>>>having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>
>>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>
>>Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
> 
> 
> Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs more than
> spoofing does.

it takes all of 30 seconds.  if 30 seconds of your time is worth more 
than the security of your bank account, by all means stick with 1.0.

-scratch
0
scratch
2/26/2005 12:21:23 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>scratch wrote:
>>
>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>
>>>
>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>
>>>-scratch
> 
> 
> The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
> subject in the body of your post, thanks.
> 
> Short answer:
> 
> Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
> access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
> regular means.
> 
> Long answer:
> 
> A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
> intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
> the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
> hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
> trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
> the packets are coming from that host.
> 

that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
such as passwords or credit card numbers.

-scratch
0
scratch
2/26/2005 12:24:43 AM
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> My concern is having to reinstall all the extensions or extensions that 
> don't work with 1.0.1. Resolving that will be much more than 30 seconds 
> of my time...

I failed to uninstall FF 1.0 before installing 1.0.1 and I didn't 
encounter any problems (Extensions == Web Development Tool bar, User 
Agent Switch, Nuke Anything, FlashBlock, Alt Tool Tip, Spoofstick). A 
very credible fear though. I was hoping this was taken care of with the 
1.0 release...

-jace
0
Jace
2/26/2005 12:37:31 AM
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> scratch wrote:
> 
> 
>>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of 
>>>>>>people having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>>
>>>>Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
>>>
>>>Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs more 
>>>than spoofing does.
>>
>>it takes all of 30 seconds.  if 30 seconds of your time is worth more 
>>than the security of your bank account, by all means stick with 1.0.
> 
> 
> My concern is having to reinstall all the extensions or extensions that 
> don't work with 1.0.1. Resolving that will be much more than 30 seconds 
> of my time...

extensions don't need to be reinstalled, they're stored in your profile 
and are fully compatible with all 1.0.x releases.

-scratch

0
scratch
2/26/2005 12:38:27 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:

>On 25.02.2005 12:44, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>  
>
>>On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing,
>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first,
>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>
>>>>-scratch
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>>>having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>      
>>>
>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>    
>>
>
>But there IS an excellent reason to upgrade if you follow the standard
>recommended procedure of uninstalling first.
>
>
>  
>
Will any of my extensions be disabled? I hate it when a new version ends 
up costing me an hour more to get back to where I was before. And most 
FF/TB upgrades I've done have done just that. I'm very shy about updating.

-- 
*****************************
 Chuck Anderson � Boulder, CO
 http://www.CycleTourist.com
 Integrity is obvious.
 The lack of it is common.
*****************************
0
Chuck
2/26/2005 12:45:45 AM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing,
>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first,
>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>
>>>-scratch
>>
>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>>having trouble with this one if they do not.
> 
> 
> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.

No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version. 
  I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and 
unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/moz.html
0
Ed
2/26/2005 1:03:10 AM
Chuck Anderson wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
> 
>> On 25.02.2005 12:44, Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>  
>>
>>> On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>>> a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing,
>>>>> have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first,
>>>>> but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>
>>>>> -scratch
>>>>>       
>>>>
>>>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>>>> having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> But there IS an excellent reason to upgrade if you follow the standard
>> recommended procedure of uninstalling first.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> Will any of my extensions be disabled? I hate it when a new version ends 
> up costing me an hour more to get back to where I was before. And most 
> FF/TB upgrades I've done have done just that. I'm very shy about updating.
> 

None of mine were,

Lee
0
Leonidas
2/26/2005 2:43:18 AM
Leonidas Jones wrote:

>Chuck Anderson wrote:
>  
>
>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On 25.02.2005 12:44, Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>
>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing,
>>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first,
>>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>>>>>having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>>    
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>>  
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>But there IS an excellent reason to upgrade if you follow the standard
>>>recommended procedure of uninstalling first.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Will any of my extensions be disabled? I hate it when a new version ends 
>>up costing me an hour more to get back to where I was before. And most 
>>FF/TB upgrades I've done have done just that. I'm very shy about updating.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>None of mine were,
>
>Lee
>  
>
I exaggerate a bit, but still often a half hour or more.

If I upgrade right when a new version is released I have extensions that 
are disabled and then I have to go get new versions of those (if they 
exist) and hope that those new versions behave.  I like to read the 
newsgroup for a week or two (or more) before I upgrade to see how it's 
going for everyone else, ... and to wait for extensions to be upgraded.

Are all my extensions going to keep working in 1.01?  (That's more 
rhetorical than anything else, as you obviously don't know what 
extensions I have installed.)

-- 
*****************************
 Chuck Anderson � Boulder, CO
 http://www.CycleTourist.com
 Integrity is obvious.
 The lack of it is common.
*****************************
0
Chuck
2/26/2005 4:54:53 AM
scratch wrote:

>Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>  
>
>>scratch wrote:
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of 
>>>>>>>people having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs more 
>>>>than spoofing does.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>it takes all of 30 seconds.  if 30 seconds of your time is worth more 
>>>than the security of your bank account, by all means stick with 1.0.
>>>      
>>>
>>My concern is having to reinstall all the extensions or extensions that 
>>don't work with 1.0.1. Resolving that will be much more than 30 seconds 
>>of my time...
>>    
>>
>
>extensions don't need to be reinstalled, they're stored in your profile 
>and are fully compatible with all 1.0.x releases.
>
>-scratch
>
>  
>
Can I take your word on that?

-- 
*****************************
 Chuck Anderson � Boulder, CO
 http://www.CycleTourist.com
 Integrity is obvious.
 The lack of it is common.
*****************************
0
Chuck
2/26/2005 4:55:18 AM
Chuck Anderson wrote:
> Leonidas Jones wrote:
> 
>> Chuck Anderson wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>> On 25.02.2005 12:44, Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>> On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>>> a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing,
>>>>>>> have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version 
>>>>>>> first,
>>>>>>> but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -scratch
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of 
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>>>            
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>>>  
>>>>>       
>>>>
>>>> But there IS an excellent reason to upgrade if you follow the standard
>>>> recommended procedure of uninstalling first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Will any of my extensions be disabled? I hate it when a new version 
>>> ends up costing me an hour more to get back to where I was before. 
>>> And most FF/TB upgrades I've done have done just that. I'm very shy 
>>> about updating.
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>
>> None of mine were,
>>
>> Lee
>>  
>>
> I exaggerate a bit, but still often a half hour or more.
> 
> If I upgrade right when a new version is released I have extensions that 
> are disabled and then I have to go get new versions of those (if they 
> exist) and hope that those new versions behave.  I like to read the 
> newsgroup for a week or two (or more) before I upgrade to see how it's 
> going for everyone else, ... and to wait for extensions to be upgraded.
> 
> Are all my extensions going to keep working in 1.01?  (That's more 
> rhetorical than anything else, as you obviously don't know what 
> extensions I have installed.)
> 

Well, I have a lot of extensions installed and all of mine carried over.

More then that, 1.0.1 is a security update, so its unlikely that 
extensions would be broken. Anything is possible, but I think you will 
be pretty safe on this one.

Lee
0
Leonidas
2/26/2005 5:06:46 AM
Leonidas Jones wrote:
> Chuck Anderson wrote:

[*HUGE* snip]

>> Are all my extensions going to keep working in 1.01?  (That's more 
>> rhetorical than anything else, as you obviously don't know what 
>> extensions I have installed.)

> Well, I have a lot of extensions installed and all of mine carried over.

Ditto, here.  All systems "GO".

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6)
Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1

-- 
DC             Linux RU #1000111011000111001
0
DC
2/26/2005 5:13:28 AM
On 25.02.2005 22:54, Chuck Anderson wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Leonidas Jones wrote:
> 
>>Chuck Anderson wrote:
>>  
>>
>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>On 25.02.2005 12:44, Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>>On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing,
>>>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first,
>>>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>>>>>>having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>
>>>>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>>>  
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>But there IS an excellent reason to upgrade if you follow the standard
>>>>recommended procedure of uninstalling first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>Will any of my extensions be disabled? I hate it when a new version ends 
>>>up costing me an hour more to get back to where I was before. And most 
>>>FF/TB upgrades I've done have done just that. I'm very shy about updating.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>None of mine were,
>>
>>Lee
>>  
>>
> I exaggerate a bit, but still often a half hour or more.
> 
> If I upgrade right when a new version is released I have extensions that 
> are disabled and then I have to go get new versions of those (if they 
> exist) and hope that those new versions behave.  I like to read the 
> newsgroup for a week or two (or more) before I upgrade to see how it's 
> going for everyone else, ... and to wait for extensions to be upgraded.
> 
> Are all my extensions going to keep working in 1.01?  (That's more 
> rhetorical than anything else, as you obviously don't know what 
> extensions I have installed.)
> 

The big question that you have to ask yourself is "Do I NEED to
upgrade"? If so, then understand the caveats and willing to risk it.

Re: extensions

Depends on where the extensions are installed, in the program or profile
directory.

You might consider installing the ZIP builds instead of the installer
builds.


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/26/2005 3:07:31 PM
On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> 
>>>scratch wrote:
>>>
>>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>
>>>>-scratch
>> 
>> 
>> The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
>> subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>> 
>> Short answer:
>> 
>> Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
>> access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
>> regular means.
>> 
>> Long answer:
>> 
>> A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
>> intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
>> the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
>> hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
>> trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
>> the packets are coming from that host.
>> 
> 
> that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
> here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
> is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
> website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
> such as passwords or credit card numbers.
> 
> -scratch

I said:

>> Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else

You said:

>> where a malicious website masquerades as another website

Looks sorta similar to me.

Concept is the same -> false identification.

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/26/2005 3:16:43 PM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>
>>>>>-scratch
>>>
>>>
>>>The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
>>>subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>>>
>>>Short answer:
>>>
>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
>>>access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
>>>regular means.
>>>
>>>Long answer:
>>>
>>>A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
>>>intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
>>>the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
>>>hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
>>>trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
>>>the packets are coming from that host.
>>>
>>
>>that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
>>here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
>>is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
>>website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
>>such as passwords or credit card numbers.
>>
>>-scratch
> 
> 
> I said:
> 
> 
>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
>>>where a malicious website masquerades as another website
> 
> 
> Looks sorta similar to me.
> 
> Concept is the same -> false identification.
> 

well, yeah, the concept is the same, that's why it has the same term. 
the specifics are very different, though.

-scratch
0
scratch
2/26/2005 4:18:11 PM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>
>>>>>-scratch
>>>
>>>
>>>The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
>>>subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>>>
>>>Short answer:
>>>
>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
>>>access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
>>>regular means.
>>>
>>>Long answer:
>>>
>>>A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
>>>intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
>>>the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
>>>hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
>>>trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
>>>the packets are coming from that host.
>>>
>>
>>that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
>>here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
>>is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
>>website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
>>such as passwords or credit card numbers.
>>
>>-scratch
> 
> 
> I said:
> 
> 
>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
>>>where a malicious website masquerades as another website
> 
> 
> Looks sorta similar to me.
> 
> Concept is the same -> false identification.
> 
It means substituting false data for true data in an email, or newsgroup 
article, either in the headers, or in a link.
0
Ron
2/26/2005 4:36:23 PM
On 2005-02-25, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>> having trouble with this one if they do not.

> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.

Why is that? Is it such a burden to uninstall? Uninstalling doesn't touch 
your profile directories, you know...

-- 

John (john@os2.dhs.org)
0
John
2/27/2005 12:07:56 AM
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2005-02-25, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
>>On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>>>having trouble with this one if they do not.
> 
> 
>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
> 
> 
> Why is that? Is it such a burden to uninstall? Uninstalling doesn't touch 
> your profile directories, you know...
> 

  I think Howard's point is that a good program installer should not 
require the uninstall first.

Basically, I agree with him. I have found the the Suite instqaller 
unistalls the previous version quite well. The FF installer should do 
the same.  It doesn't.

I don't think that uninstall/install is so onerous, but it really 
shouldn't be necessary.

Lee
0
Leonidas
2/27/2005 12:24:14 AM
Chuck Anderson wrote:
> scratch wrote:
> 
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> scratch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>> On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of 
>>>>>>>> people having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
>>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>> Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs 
>>>>> more than spoofing does.
>>>>>       
>>>>
>>>> it takes all of 30 seconds.  if 30 seconds of your time is worth 
>>>> more than the security of your bank account, by all means stick with 
>>>> 1.0.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> My concern is having to reinstall all the extensions or extensions 
>>> that don't work with 1.0.1. Resolving that will be much more than 30 
>>> seconds of my time...
>>>   
>>
>>
>> extensions don't need to be reinstalled, they're stored in your 
>> profile and are fully compatible with all 1.0.x releases.
>>
>> -scratch
>>
>>  
>>
> Can I take your word on that?
> 
Don't be sure, I needed to reinstall the Macromedia Flash Player after 
an upgrade to 1.0.1.

-- 
th
0
th
2/27/2005 12:25:29 AM
In message <Zr8Ud.131380$dP1.470422@newsc.telia.net> th
<someguy@somewhere.se> wrote:

>Chuck Anderson wrote:
>> scratch wrote:
>> 
>>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>> scratch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of 
>>>>>>>>> people having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs 
>>>>>> more than spoofing does.
>>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>> it takes all of 30 seconds.  if 30 seconds of your time is worth 
>>>>> more than the security of your bank account, by all means stick with 
>>>>> 1.0.
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>> My concern is having to reinstall all the extensions or extensions 
>>>> that don't work with 1.0.1. Resolving that will be much more than 30 
>>>> seconds of my time...
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>> extensions don't need to be reinstalled, they're stored in your 
>>> profile and are fully compatible with all 1.0.x releases.
>>>
>>> -scratch
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> Can I take your word on that?
>> 
>Don't be sure, I needed to reinstall the Macromedia Flash Player after 
>an upgrade to 1.0.1.

Flash is a plug-in, not an extension.

You can maintain your plug-in directory if you want (At least with Sun
Java and Flash)


-- 
You're testing my patience, now why don't you move
on before I decide to flunk the test.
0
DevilsPGD
2/27/2005 2:16:45 AM
Leonidas Jones wrote:
> John Thompson wrote:
> 
>> On 2005-02-25, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>>>> having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>
>>
>>
>>> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is that? Is it such a burden to uninstall? Uninstalling doesn't 
>> touch your profile directories, you know...
>>
> 
>  I think Howard's point is that a good program installer should not 
> require the uninstall first.
> 
> Basically, I agree with him. I have found the the Suite instqaller 
> unistalls the previous version quite well. The FF installer should do 
> the same.  It doesn't.
> 
> I don't think that uninstall/install is so onerous, but it really 
> shouldn't be necessary.
> 
> Lee
I had thought that was to have been fixed, eons ago.  Guess not....
0
Ron
2/27/2005 2:37:59 AM
th wrote:
> Chuck Anderson wrote:
> 
>> scratch wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>> scratch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports 
>>>>>>>>> of people having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs 
>>>>>> more than spoofing does.
>>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it takes all of 30 seconds.  if 30 seconds of your time is worth 
>>>>> more than the security of your bank account, by all means stick 
>>>>> with 1.0.
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My concern is having to reinstall all the extensions or extensions 
>>>> that don't work with 1.0.1. Resolving that will be much more than 30 
>>>> seconds of my time...
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> extensions don't need to be reinstalled, they're stored in your 
>>> profile and are fully compatible with all 1.0.x releases.
>>>
>>> -scratch
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> Can I take your word on that?
>>
> Don't be sure, I needed to reinstall the Macromedia Flash Player after 
> an upgrade to 1.0.1.
> 
Had to recopy it from the Mozilla Suite plugins directory on my desktop 
to the laptop.  Note that 1.01 also breaks old .jar for Skypilot theme.
Worse, the latest trunk version totaly trashes the Skypilot theme by 
reworking the options dialog..
More work for Sailfish.
0
Ron
2/27/2005 2:39:45 AM
Ron Hunter wrote:
> th wrote:
> 
>>Chuck Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>scratch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports 
>>>>>>>>>>of people having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs 
>>>>>>>more than spoofing does.
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it takes all of 30 seconds.  if 30 seconds of your time is worth 
>>>>>>more than the security of your bank account, by all means stick 
>>>>>>with 1.0.
>>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My concern is having to reinstall all the extensions or extensions 
>>>>>that don't work with 1.0.1. Resolving that will be much more than 30 
>>>>>seconds of my time...
>>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>extensions don't need to be reinstalled, they're stored in your 
>>>>profile and are fully compatible with all 1.0.x releases.
>>>>
>>>>-scratch
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can I take your word on that?
>>>
>>
>>Don't be sure, I needed to reinstall the Macromedia Flash Player after 
>>an upgrade to 1.0.1.
>>
> 
> Had to recopy it from the Mozilla Suite plugins directory on my desktop 
> to the laptop.  Note that 1.01 also breaks old .jar for Skypilot theme.
> Worse, the latest trunk version totaly trashes the Skypilot theme by 
> reworking the options dialog..
> More work for Sailfish.

i use zip builds, so i just manually dumped the directory (except 
plugins/) and unzipped the new build.  1.0.1 worked exactly as 1.0 used 
to in all respects (themes, extensions, plugins).  if the uninstaller is 
removing the plugins folder, it should be reported as a bug on bugzilla.

-scratch
0
scratch
2/27/2005 2:58:13 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 26.02.2005 10:36, Ron Hunter wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
>>>>>subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Short answer:
>>>>>
>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
>>>>>access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
>>>>>regular means.
>>>>>
>>>>>Long answer:
>>>>>
>>>>>A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
>>>>>intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
>>>>>the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
>>>>>hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
>>>>>trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
>>>>>the packets are coming from that host.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
>>>>here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
>>>>is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
>>>>website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
>>>>such as passwords or credit card numbers.
>>>>
>>>>-scratch
>>>
>>>
>>>I said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else
>>>
>>>
>>>You said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>where a malicious website masquerades as another website
>>>
>>>
>>>Looks sorta similar to me.
>>>
>>>Concept is the same -> false identification.
>>>
>>
>>It means substituting false data for true data in an email, or newsgroup 
>>article, either in the headers, or in a link.
> 
> 
> The original definition of "Spoofing":
> 
> "Spoofing is the creation of TCP/IP packets using somebody else's IP
> address. Routers use the "destination IP" address in order to forward
> packets through the Internet, but ignore the "source IP" address. That
> address is only used by the destination machine when it responds back to
> the source."
> 
> I think the term is misapplied in a lot of instances these days.
> 

the original definition of spoofing:

tr.v. spoofed, spoof�ing, spoofs

    1. To deceive.
    2. To do a spoof of; satirize gently.

any other, more specific definitions depend on the context.

-scratch
0
scratch
2/27/2005 3:00:00 AM
On 26.02.2005 10:36, Ron Hunter wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> 
>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
>>>>subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>>>>
>>>>Short answer:
>>>>
>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
>>>>access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
>>>>regular means.
>>>>
>>>>Long answer:
>>>>
>>>>A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
>>>>intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
>>>>the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
>>>>hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
>>>>trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
>>>>the packets are coming from that host.
>>>>
>>>
>>>that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
>>>here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
>>>is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
>>>website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
>>>such as passwords or credit card numbers.
>>>
>>>-scratch
>> 
>> 
>> I said:
>> 
>> 
>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else
>> 
>> 
>> You said:
>> 
>> 
>>>>where a malicious website masquerades as another website
>> 
>> 
>> Looks sorta similar to me.
>> 
>> Concept is the same -> false identification.
>> 
> It means substituting false data for true data in an email, or newsgroup 
> article, either in the headers, or in a link.

The original definition of "Spoofing":

"Spoofing is the creation of TCP/IP packets using somebody else's IP
address. Routers use the "destination IP" address in order to forward
packets through the Internet, but ignore the "source IP" address. That
address is only used by the destination machine when it responds back to
the source."

I think the term is misapplied in a lot of instances these days.

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/27/2005 3:00:52 AM
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:03:10 -0500, Ed Mullen
<ed@edmullen.net> wrote:

I have FF set to check for updates, but it hasn't notified
me of this.

>  No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version. 

What you're saying doesn't make sense either.  1.0 was a
simple upgrade and installed beautifully over .9.3 for me,
so there's no compelling reason to treat 1x with kid gloves
either.

>  I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and 
>  unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.

So, how are bookmarks transfered to the new version if we
uninstall the old version via add/removde programs first?
0
sf
2/27/2005 3:46:56 AM
On 26.02.2005 21:00, scratch wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 26.02.2005 10:36, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> 
>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>>>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>>>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>>>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
>>>>>>subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Short answer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
>>>>>>access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
>>>>>>regular means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Long answer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
>>>>>>intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
>>>>>>the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
>>>>>>hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
>>>>>>trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
>>>>>>the packets are coming from that host.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
>>>>>here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
>>>>>is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
>>>>>website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
>>>>>such as passwords or credit card numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>>-scratch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>where a malicious website masquerades as another website
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Looks sorta similar to me.
>>>>
>>>>Concept is the same -> false identification.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It means substituting false data for true data in an email, or newsgroup 
>>>article, either in the headers, or in a link.
>> 
>> 
>> The original definition of "Spoofing":
>> 
>> "Spoofing is the creation of TCP/IP packets using somebody else's IP
>> address. Routers use the "destination IP" address in order to forward
>> packets through the Internet, but ignore the "source IP" address. That
>> address is only used by the destination machine when it responds back to
>> the source."
>> 
>> I think the term is misapplied in a lot of instances these days.
>> 
> 
> the original definition of spoofing:
> 
> tr.v. spoofed, spoof�ing, spoofs
> 
>     1. To deceive.
>     2. To do a spoof of; satirize gently.
> 
> any other, more specific definitions depend on the context.
> 
> -scratch

Wasn't MY definition but rather from:

http://www.iss.net/security_center/advice/Underground/Hacking/Methods/Technical/Spoofing/default.htm

Back in "the days", that was "spoofing". ;-)

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/27/2005 3:51:19 AM
On 26.02.2005 21:46, sf wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:03:10 -0500, Ed Mullen
> <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
> 
> I have FF set to check for updates, but it hasn't notified
> me of this.
> 
>>  No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version. 
> 
> What you're saying doesn't make sense either.  1.0 was a
> simple upgrade and installed beautifully over .9.3 for me,
> so there's no compelling reason to treat 1x with kid gloves
> either.

You may not have encountered the "gremlins" yet but you will .. ohhh,
you will ... ;-)

>>  I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and 
>>  unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.
> 
> So, how are bookmarks transfered to the new version if we
> uninstall the old version via add/removde programs first?

So obviously you don't understand the procedure. When you UNinstall by
the conventional method via control-panel add/remove programs, the
program files are uninstalled but your profile is left intact and is not
affected whatsoever. The new install automatically recognizes your
existing profile.

If program files are left behind there is the "possibility" that there
"may" be corruption, etc. That's why we blanketly advise to uninstall
first. You may be ok from version to version but one day you "may" run
into problems. Just beware of the caveats ... :-)


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/27/2005 3:56:13 AM
Ron Hunter wrote:
> Leonidas Jones wrote:
> 
>> John Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-02-25, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25-Feb-2005, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of 
>>>>> people
>>>>> having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is that? Is it such a burden to uninstall? Uninstalling doesn't 
>>> touch your profile directories, you know...
>>>
>>
>>  I think Howard's point is that a good program installer should not 
>> require the uninstall first.
>>
>> Basically, I agree with him. I have found the the Suite instqaller 
>> unistalls the previous version quite well. The FF installer should do 
>> the same.  It doesn't.
>>
>> I don't think that uninstall/install is so onerous, but it really 
>> shouldn't be necessary.
>>
>> Lee
> 
> I had thought that was to have been fixed, eons ago.  Guess not....

Its not a problem with the Suite, but it is with FF/TB.

Lee
0
Leonidas
2/27/2005 4:26:42 AM
In message <epe221l0mgefedjb7rkveafs55smp6cj7f@4ax.com> sf
<nobody@comcast.net> wrote:

>>  I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and 
>>  unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.
>
>So, how are bookmarks transfered to the new version if we
>uninstall the old version via add/removde programs first?

Your profile directories won't be touched but the reinstallation -- No
transfer needed.


-- 
For recreational use only.
0
DevilsPGD
2/27/2005 5:19:05 AM
In article <cvrgcq$lch4@ripley.netscape.com>, Jay@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com 
says...
> On 26.02.2005 21:46, sf wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:03:10 -0500, Ed Mullen
> > <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
> > 
> > I have FF set to check for updates, but it hasn't notified
> > me of this.
> > 
> >>  No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version. 
> > 
> > What you're saying doesn't make sense either.  1.0 was a
> > simple upgrade and installed beautifully over .9.3 for me,
> > so there's no compelling reason to treat 1x with kid gloves
> > either.
> 
> You may not have encountered the "gremlins" yet but you will .. ohhh,
> you will ... ;-)
> 
> >>  I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and 
> >>  unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.
> > 
> > So, how are bookmarks transfered to the new version if we
> > uninstall the old version via add/removde programs first?
> 
> So obviously you don't understand the procedure. When you UNinstall by
> the conventional method via control-panel add/remove programs, the
> program files are uninstalled but your profile is left intact and is not
> affected whatsoever. The new install automatically recognizes your
> existing profile.
> 
> If program files are left behind there is the "possibility" that there
> "may" be corruption, etc. That's why we blanketly advise to uninstall
> first. You may be ok from version to version but one day you "may" run
> into problems. Just beware of the caveats ... :-)
> 
> 
> 
After using add/remove programs, you're asked if you want to remove the 
whole mozilla/firefox directory. Say NO.

Then reboot, install the new version.  Mine worked perfectly and picked 
up bookmarks, plugins, extensions, seems like everything is just as it 
was except I'm hopefully running a more secure and stable browser.

Louise
0
Louise
2/27/2005 6:23:49 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 26.02.2005 10:36, Ron Hunter wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
>>>>>subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Short answer:
>>>>>
>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
>>>>>access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
>>>>>regular means.
>>>>>
>>>>>Long answer:
>>>>>
>>>>>A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
>>>>>intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
>>>>>the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
>>>>>hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
>>>>>trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
>>>>>the packets are coming from that host.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
>>>>here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
>>>>is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
>>>>website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
>>>>such as passwords or credit card numbers.
>>>>
>>>>-scratch
>>>
>>>
>>>I said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else
>>>
>>>
>>>You said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>where a malicious website masquerades as another website
>>>
>>>
>>>Looks sorta similar to me.
>>>
>>>Concept is the same -> false identification.
>>>
>>
>>It means substituting false data for true data in an email, or newsgroup 
>>article, either in the headers, or in a link.
> 
> 
> The original definition of "Spoofing":
> 
> "Spoofing is the creation of TCP/IP packets using somebody else's IP
> address. Routers use the "destination IP" address in order to forward
> packets through the Internet, but ignore the "source IP" address. That
> address is only used by the destination machine when it responds back to
> the source."
> 
> I think the term is misapplied in a lot of instances these days.
> 
Yes, now inserting false, or misleading, data in a link, or even a 
website is often called 'spoofing'.  The language changes with usage, 
just like 'spam' meant a type of canned meat used by the military in 
WWII... For some of us older guys, it's often consumed as 'comfort food'.
I think I will have some for breakfast in the morning...
0
Ron
2/27/2005 6:41:16 AM
sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:03:10 -0500, Ed Mullen
> <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
> 
> I have FF set to check for updates, but it hasn't notified
> me of this.
> 
> 
>> No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version. 
> 
> 
> What you're saying doesn't make sense either.  1.0 was a
> simple upgrade and installed beautifully over .9.3 for me,
> so there's no compelling reason to treat 1x with kid gloves
> either.
> 
> 
>> I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and 
>> unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.
> 
> 
> So, how are bookmarks transfered to the new version if we
> uninstall the old version via add/removde programs first?

Bookmarks are NOT installed in the program folders, which is all the 
uninstall changes.
0
Ron
2/27/2005 6:42:26 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 26.02.2005 21:46, sf wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:03:10 -0500, Ed Mullen
>><ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>
>>I have FF set to check for updates, but it hasn't notified
>>me of this.
>>
>>
>>> No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version. 
>>
>>What you're saying doesn't make sense either.  1.0 was a
>>simple upgrade and installed beautifully over .9.3 for me,
>>so there's no compelling reason to treat 1x with kid gloves
>>either.
> 
> 
> You may not have encountered the "gremlins" yet but you will .. ohhh,
> you will ... ;-)
> 
> 
>>> I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and 
>>> unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.
>>
>>So, how are bookmarks transfered to the new version if we
>>uninstall the old version via add/removde programs first?
> 
> 
> So obviously you don't understand the procedure. When you UNinstall by
> the conventional method via control-panel add/remove programs, the
> program files are uninstalled but your profile is left intact and is not
> affected whatsoever. The new install automatically recognizes your
> existing profile.
> 
> If program files are left behind there is the "possibility" that there
> "may" be corruption, etc. That's why we blanketly advise to uninstall
> first. You may be ok from version to version but one day you "may" run
> into problems. Just beware of the caveats ... :-)
> 
> 
Unfortunately, lots of things in the profile directory can cause new 
installs to fail to work also.  I put 1.01 on my laptop and had to make 
a new profile.  I still don't know what caused the trouble in it.  May 
investigate further when I feel like it.
0
Ron
2/27/2005 6:44:08 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 26.02.2005 21:00, scratch wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>On 26.02.2005 10:36, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>>>>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>>>>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>>>>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>>>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>>>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
>>>>>>>subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Short answer:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
>>>>>>>access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
>>>>>>>regular means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Long answer:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
>>>>>>>intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
>>>>>>>the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
>>>>>>>hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
>>>>>>>trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
>>>>>>>the packets are coming from that host.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
>>>>>>here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
>>>>>>is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
>>>>>>website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
>>>>>>such as passwords or credit card numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>where a malicious website masquerades as another website
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks sorta similar to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>Concept is the same -> false identification.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It means substituting false data for true data in an email, or newsgroup 
>>>>article, either in the headers, or in a link.
>>>
>>>
>>>The original definition of "Spoofing":
>>>
>>>"Spoofing is the creation of TCP/IP packets using somebody else's IP
>>>address. Routers use the "destination IP" address in order to forward
>>>packets through the Internet, but ignore the "source IP" address. That
>>>address is only used by the destination machine when it responds back to
>>>the source."
>>>
>>>I think the term is misapplied in a lot of instances these days.
>>>
>>
>>the original definition of spoofing:
>>
>>tr.v. spoofed, spoof�ing, spoofs
>>
>>    1. To deceive.
>>    2. To do a spoof of; satirize gently.
>>
>>any other, more specific definitions depend on the context.
>>
>>-scratch
> 
> 
> Wasn't MY definition but rather from:
> 
> http://www.iss.net/security_center/advice/Underground/Hacking/Methods/Technical/Spoofing/default.htm
> 
> Back in "the days", that was "spoofing". ;-)

right, but spoofing still had other meanings then.  that was (and still 
is) the meaning when you're discussing networks.

-scratch
0
scratch
2/27/2005 7:48:55 AM
Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:

>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people 
>having trouble with this one if they do not.
>
>Lee

Firefox will not be ready for prime time until updates are just a
matter of downloading the setup.exe and clicking on it, while
automatically preserving prior preferences, plugins, extensions, etc.
Having to uninstall first, or having to unzip and move only certain
files to certain directories are simply not an acceptable requirements
for the masses.  

Now, having said that, I should also add that Firefox and Mozilla are
fantastic browsers for which the open source community should be
proud.  Kudos to all involved.


0
JT
2/27/2005 6:44:05 PM
On 27.02.2005 01:48, scratch wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 26.02.2005 21:00, scratch wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> 
>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 26.02.2005 10:36, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>>>>>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>>>>>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>>>>>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>>>>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>>>>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
>>>>>>>>subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Short answer:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
>>>>>>>>access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
>>>>>>>>regular means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Long answer:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
>>>>>>>>intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
>>>>>>>>the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
>>>>>>>>hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
>>>>>>>>trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
>>>>>>>>the packets are coming from that host.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
>>>>>>>here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
>>>>>>>is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
>>>>>>>website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
>>>>>>>such as passwords or credit card numbers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>where a malicious website masquerades as another website
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks sorta similar to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Concept is the same -> false identification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It means substituting false data for true data in an email, or newsgroup 
>>>>>article, either in the headers, or in a link.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The original definition of "Spoofing":
>>>>
>>>>"Spoofing is the creation of TCP/IP packets using somebody else's IP
>>>>address. Routers use the "destination IP" address in order to forward
>>>>packets through the Internet, but ignore the "source IP" address. That
>>>>address is only used by the destination machine when it responds back to
>>>>the source."
>>>>
>>>>I think the term is misapplied in a lot of instances these days.
>>>>
>>>
>>>the original definition of spoofing:
>>>
>>>tr.v. spoofed, spoof�ing, spoofs
>>>
>>>    1. To deceive.
>>>    2. To do a spoof of; satirize gently.
>>>
>>>any other, more specific definitions depend on the context.
>>>
>>>-scratch
>> 
>> 
>> Wasn't MY definition but rather from:
>> 
>> http://www.iss.net/security_center/advice/Underground/Hacking/Methods/Technical/Spoofing/default.htm
>> 
>> Back in "the days", that was "spoofing". ;-)
> 
> right, but spoofing still had other meanings then.  that was (and still 
> is) the meaning when you're discussing networks.
> 
> -scratch

The #1 posted above is the most accurate, simple is all encompassing:
"To Deceive" .. period, needs no further explanation.


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/27/2005 7:01:08 PM
On 27.02.2005 00:23, Louise wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> In article <cvrgcq$lch4@ripley.netscape.com>, Jay@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com 
> says...
>> On 26.02.2005 21:46, sf wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:03:10 -0500, Ed Mullen
>> > <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>> > 
>> > I have FF set to check for updates, but it hasn't notified
>> > me of this.
>> > 
>> >>  No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version. 
>> > 
>> > What you're saying doesn't make sense either.  1.0 was a
>> > simple upgrade and installed beautifully over .9.3 for me,
>> > so there's no compelling reason to treat 1x with kid gloves
>> > either.
>> 
>> You may not have encountered the "gremlins" yet but you will .. ohhh,
>> you will ... ;-)
>> 
>> >>  I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and 
>> >>  unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.
>> > 
>> > So, how are bookmarks transfered to the new version if we
>> > uninstall the old version via add/removde programs first?
>> 
>> So obviously you don't understand the procedure. When you UNinstall by
>> the conventional method via control-panel add/remove programs, the
>> program files are uninstalled but your profile is left intact and is not
>> affected whatsoever. The new install automatically recognizes your
>> existing profile.
>> 
>> If program files are left behind there is the "possibility" that there
>> "may" be corruption, etc. That's why we blanketly advise to uninstall
>> first. You may be ok from version to version but one day you "may" run
>> into problems. Just beware of the caveats ... :-)
>> 
>> 
>> 
> After using add/remove programs, you're asked if you want to remove the 
> whole mozilla/firefox directory. Say NO.
> 
> Then reboot, install the new version.  Mine worked perfectly and picked 
> up bookmarks, plugins, extensions, seems like everything is just as it 
> was except I'm hopefully running a more secure and stable browser.
> 
> Louise

The "directory" spoken about is the program directory. The profile
directory remains intact and has no option during uninstall to delete
the profile and all data files, etc.

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/27/2005 7:03:55 PM
On 27.02.2005 00:44, Ron Hunter wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 26.02.2005 21:46, sf wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> 
>>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:03:10 -0500, Ed Mullen
>>><ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I have FF set to check for updates, but it hasn't notified
>>>me of this.
>>>
>>>
>>>> No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version. 
>>>
>>>What you're saying doesn't make sense either.  1.0 was a
>>>simple upgrade and installed beautifully over .9.3 for me,
>>>so there's no compelling reason to treat 1x with kid gloves
>>>either.
>> 
>> 
>> You may not have encountered the "gremlins" yet but you will .. ohhh,
>> you will ... ;-)
>> 
>> 
>>>> I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and 
>>>> unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.
>>>
>>>So, how are bookmarks transfered to the new version if we
>>>uninstall the old version via add/removde programs first?
>> 
>> 
>> So obviously you don't understand the procedure. When you UNinstall by
>> the conventional method via control-panel add/remove programs, the
>> program files are uninstalled but your profile is left intact and is not
>> affected whatsoever. The new install automatically recognizes your
>> existing profile.
>> 
>> If program files are left behind there is the "possibility" that there
>> "may" be corruption, etc. That's why we blanketly advise to uninstall
>> first. You may be ok from version to version but one day you "may" run
>> into problems. Just beware of the caveats ... :-)
>> 
>> 
> Unfortunately, lots of things in the profile directory can cause new 
> installs to fail to work also.  I put 1.01 on my laptop and had to make 
> a new profile.  I still don't know what caused the trouble in it.  May 
> investigate further when I feel like it.

This is very true so I found out - the hard way. I installed the latest
FF 1.0.1 and it wouldn't start no matter if I chose safe-mode or
extensions mode. The solution was to rename the /chrome/ directory in
the profile and let FF build a new one. Have no idea what was in the
/chrome/ that was the culprit.


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/27/2005 7:06:09 PM
Why does everyone quote so much material before putting in their
response.  Couldn't the quoted material be snipped or eliminated
entirely, thereby eliminating the need to scroll through a bunch of
stuff you have already read or don't need to even see; such as the
following:


On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:00:00 -0500, scratch <scratch@the-pentagon.com>
wrote:

>Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 26.02.2005 10:36, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> 
>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now V. 1.0.1.  Is 
>>>>>>>>>there any good reason to do the upgrade or should I just wait until 
>>>>>>>>>1.1 comes out?  And when you upgrade, must you uninstall the previous 
>>>>>>>>>version or just upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate to spoofing, 
>>>>>>>>have been fixed.  it's recommended to uninstall the old version first, 
>>>>>>>>but it will probably work if you just install on top.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-scratch
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please include the
>>>>>>subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Short answer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order to gain
>>>>>>access to a computer or network that you are not authorized to access by
>>>>>>regular means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Long answer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the
>>>>>>intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that
>>>>>>the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a
>>>>>>hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a
>>>>>>trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that
>>>>>>the packets are coming from that host.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>that's correct in certain situations (networking), but completely wrong 
>>>>>here (web browsers).  the spoofing that has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 
>>>>>is the situation where a malicious website masquerades as another 
>>>>>website, usually in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information 
>>>>>such as passwords or credit card numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>>-scratch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>where a malicious website masquerades as another website
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Looks sorta similar to me.
>>>>
>>>>Concept is the same -> false identification.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It means substituting false data for true data in an email, or newsgroup 
>>>article, either in the headers, or in a link.
>> 
>> 
>> The original definition of "Spoofing":
>> 
>> "Spoofing is the creation of TCP/IP packets using somebody else's IP
>> address. Routers use the "destination IP" address in order to forward
>> packets through the Internet, but ignore the "source IP" address. That
>> address is only used by the destination machine when it responds back to
>> the source."
>> 
>> I think the term is misapplied in a lot of instances these days.
>> 
>
>the original definition of spoofing:
>
>tr.v. spoofed, spoof�ing, spoofs
>
>    1. To deceive.
>    2. To do a spoof of; satirize gently.
>
>any other, more specific definitions depend on the context.
>
>-scratch

0
JDT
2/27/2005 8:15:47 PM
JDT wrote:
> Why does everyone quote so much material before putting in their
> response.  Couldn't the quoted material be snipped or eliminated
> entirely, thereby eliminating the need to scroll through a bunch of
> stuff you have already read or don't need to even see; such as the
> following:

I usually snip, i probably should do so more often.  it should not be 
eliminated entirely, because then you have no context whatsoever for the 
new post.

-scratch
0
scratch
2/27/2005 8:57:51 PM
DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <Zr8Ud.131380$dP1.470422@newsc.telia.net> th
> <someguy@somewhere.se> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Chuck Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>scratch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>scratch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 25-Feb-2005, DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of 
>>>>>>>>>>people having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sure, who cares about little things like security, right?
>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Software that doesn't upgrade safely without reinstalling costs 
>>>>>>>more than spoofing does.
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it takes all of 30 seconds.  if 30 seconds of your time is worth 
>>>>>>more than the security of your bank account, by all means stick with 
>>>>>>1.0.
>>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>My concern is having to reinstall all the extensions or extensions 
>>>>>that don't work with 1.0.1. Resolving that will be much more than 30 
>>>>>seconds of my time...
>>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>extensions don't need to be reinstalled, they're stored in your 
>>>>profile and are fully compatible with all 1.0.x releases.
>>>>
>>>>-scratch
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can I take your word on that?
>>>
>>
>>Don't be sure, I needed to reinstall the Macromedia Flash Player after 
>>an upgrade to 1.0.1.
> 
> 
> Flash is a plug-in, not an extension.
> 
> You can maintain your plug-in directory if you want (At least with Sun
> Java and Flash)
> 
> 
Sorry, missed that difference between the two concepts. How do you 
maintain the plug-ins? I have the Java 2 Runtime environment installed 
but I'm not sure whether Firefox uses that one or the one delivered with 
Windows (yes my XP is quite early and includes Microsoft Java support)

-- 
th
0
th
2/27/2005 9:11:46 PM
JDT <jdten4@netscape.com> wrote in news:3da421hopfdajg1kj0flgq4g9gltprnu1r@
4ax.com:

> Why does everyone quote so much material before putting in their
> response. 

http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html

-- 
}:-)       Christopher Jahn
{:-(       http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

If you can't see the fnords, they can't eat you. 
0
Christopher
2/27/2005 9:29:06 PM
In message <mIqUd.18570$d5.143252@newsb.telia.net> th
<someguy@somewhere.se> wrote:

>Sorry, missed that difference between the two concepts. How do you 
>maintain the plug-ins? I have the Java 2 Runtime environment installed 
>but I'm not sure whether Firefox uses that one or the one delivered with 
>Windows (yes my XP is quite early and includes Microsoft Java support)

Check under the FireFox directory for a subdirectory called "plugins"

Before uninstalling/deleting FF, create a backup of that directory (in
other words, copy it to your desktop or something)

After you finish the upgrade, restore the directory.

I can't promise that all plug-ins will work, but I've yet to see one
that doesn't work normally after this type of restore, especially if you
maintain your profile (which won't be harmed by a normal
uninstall/reinstall)


-- 
Politicians, like diapers, have to be changed frequently,
and for the very same reason.
0
DevilsPGD
2/28/2005 12:51:50 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 27.02.2005 00:44, Ron Hunter wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>On 26.02.2005 21:46, sf wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:03:10 -0500, Ed Mullen
>>>><ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I have FF set to check for updates, but it hasn't notified
>>>>me of this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version. 
>>>>
>>>>What you're saying doesn't make sense either.  1.0 was a
>>>>simple upgrade and installed beautifully over .9.3 for me,
>>>>so there's no compelling reason to treat 1x with kid gloves
>>>>either.
>>>
>>>
>>>You may not have encountered the "gremlins" yet but you will .. ohhh,
>>>you will ... ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and 
>>>>>unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.
>>>>
>>>>So, how are bookmarks transfered to the new version if we
>>>>uninstall the old version via add/removde programs first?
>>>
>>>
>>>So obviously you don't understand the procedure. When you UNinstall by
>>>the conventional method via control-panel add/remove programs, the
>>>program files are uninstalled but your profile is left intact and is not
>>>affected whatsoever. The new install automatically recognizes your
>>>existing profile.
>>>
>>>If program files are left behind there is the "possibility" that there
>>>"may" be corruption, etc. That's why we blanketly advise to uninstall
>>>first. You may be ok from version to version but one day you "may" run
>>>into problems. Just beware of the caveats ... :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Unfortunately, lots of things in the profile directory can cause new 
>>installs to fail to work also.  I put 1.01 on my laptop and had to make 
>>a new profile.  I still don't know what caused the trouble in it.  May 
>>investigate further when I feel like it.
> 
> 
> This is very true so I found out - the hard way. I installed the latest
> FF 1.0.1 and it wouldn't start no matter if I chose safe-mode or
> extensions mode. The solution was to rename the /chrome/ directory in
> the profile and let FF build a new one. Have no idea what was in the
> /chrome/ that was the culprit.
> 
> 
thanks, Jay.  If that works here, I can go back to my old profile... 
Not that I have any problem with the new one....
0
Ron
2/28/2005 1:07:42 AM
JT wrote:
> Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people 
>>having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>
>>Lee
> 
> 
> Firefox will not be ready for prime time until updates are just a
> matter of downloading the setup.exe and clicking on it, while
> automatically preserving prior preferences, plugins, extensions, etc.
> Having to uninstall first, or having to unzip and move only certain
> files to certain directories are simply not an acceptable requirements
> for the masses.  
> 
> Now, having said that, I should also add that Firefox and Mozilla are
> fantastic browsers for which the open source community should be
> proud.  Kudos to all involved.
> 
> 

You have a point, but, ready or not, its the second most popular browser 
in use on the internet.

A lot of these problem have to do with the nature of Open Source, free 
programs, as opposed to commercial programs.

Lee
0
Leonidas
2/28/2005 1:45:24 AM
On 27 Feb 2005 21:29:06 GMT, Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JDT <jdten4@netscape.com> wrote in news:3da421hopfdajg1kj0flgq4g9gltprnu1r@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Why does everyone quote so much material before putting in their
>> response. 
>
>http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html

I read this.  I don't necessarily agree with the protocol, but I don't
care.  I think a better solution would be to top post when you're
quoting long threads to eliminate the need to scroll through long
posts in order to read a short reply.  If the quoted material is short
then bottom posting is fine.

Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent, so I
don't see why it wouldn't work here.


0
JDT
2/28/2005 1:58:59 AM
JDT <jdten4@netscape.com> wrote in 
news:6ju421h9fsrca9g6k683m6hn3l6e3akikf@4ax.com:

> 
> Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent, so I
> don't see why it wouldn't work here

So post there and not here.



-- 
}:-)       Christopher Jahn
{:-(       http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. 
0
Christopher
2/28/2005 2:06:42 AM
Christopher Jahn wrote:
> JDT <jdten4@netscape.com> wrote in news:3da421hopfdajg1kj0flgq4g9gltprnu1r@
> 4ax.com:
> 
> 
>>Why does everyone quote so much material before putting in their
>>response. 
> 
> 
> http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
> 

Remember though, Chris, we aren't on secnews here.

Here its the Etiquette:

http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html

The distinction is that these, at least theoretically, are developer 
groups, while secnews are user support groups.  We ask in the user 
support groups that there be no snipping, to keep all the support 
information together.

Lee
-- 
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
0
Leonidas
2/28/2005 3:14:52 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 27.02.2005 01:48, scratch wrote:
>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 26.02.2005 21:00, scratch wrote:
>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>> On 26.02.2005 10:36, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25.02.2005 18:24, scratch wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 25.02.2005 13:10, tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> scratch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> tenplay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been using 1.0 and just noticed that there is now
>>>>>>>>>>>> V. 1.0.1.  Is there any good reason to do the upgrade or
>>>>>>>>>>>> should I just wait until 1.1 comes out?  And when you
>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade, must you uninstall the previous version or just
>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade over the old one?  Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a number of security bugs, the majority of which relate
>>>>>>>>>>> to spoofing, have been fixed.  it's recommended to
>>>>>>>>>>> uninstall the old version first, but it will probably work
>>>>>>>>>>> if you just install on top.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The question/subject is "What's spoofing?  (nm)" .. Please
>>>>>>>>> include the subject in the body of your post, thanks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Short answer:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else in order
>>>>>>>>> to gain access to a computer or network that you are not
>>>>>>>>> authorized to access by regular means.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Long answer:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers,
>>>>>>>>> whereby the intruder sends messages to a computer with an
>>>>>>>>> IP address indicating that the message is coming from a
>>>>>>>>> trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a hacker must
>>>>>>>>> first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of
>>>>>>>>> a trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that
>>>>>>>>> it appears that the packets are coming from that host.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that's correct in certain situations (networking), but
>>>>>>>> completely wrong here (web browsers).  the spoofing that
>>>>>>>> has been fixed in firefox 1.0.1 is the situation where a
>>>>>>>> malicious website masquerades as another website, usually
>>>>>>>> in an attempt to gain access to sensitive information such
>>>>>>>> as passwords or credit card numbers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Spoofing is making it look like you're someone else
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> where a malicious website masquerades as another website
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks sorta similar to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Concept is the same -> false identification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It means substituting false data for true data in an email,
>>>>>> or newsgroup article, either in the headers, or in a link.
>>>>>
>>>>> The original definition of "Spoofing":
>>>>>
>>>>> "Spoofing is the creation of TCP/IP packets using somebody
>>>>> else's IP address. Routers use the "destination IP" address
>>>>> in order to forward packets through the Internet, but ignore
>>>>> the "source IP" address. That address is only used by the
>>>>> destination machine when it responds back to the source."
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the term is misapplied in a lot of instances these
>>>>> days.
>>>>
>>>> the original definition of spoofing:
>>>>
>>>> tr.v. spoofed, spoof�ing, spoofs
>>>>
>>>>    1. To deceive.
>>>>    2. To do a spoof of; satirize gently.
>>>>
>>>> any other, more specific definitions depend on the context.
>>>
>>> Wasn't MY definition but rather from:
>>>
>>> http://www.iss.net/security_center/advice/Underground/Hacking/Methods/Technical/Spoofing/default.htm
>>>
>>> Back in "the days", that was "spoofing". ;-)
>>
>> right, but spoofing still had other meanings then.  that was (and
>> still is) the meaning when you're discussing networks. The #1 
>> posted above is the most accurate, simple is all encompassing:
>
> "To Deceive" .. period, needs no further explanation.

Just for sport I wondered how much this horrible example of
unsnipped replies would cut down without removing anything except
blank space, quasi signatures and silly line wrappings.

-- 
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
 the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on 
 "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the 
 "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

0
CBFalconer
2/28/2005 4:40:10 AM
Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote in news:cvu2bg$ruv2
@ripley.netscape.com:

> Remember though, Chris, we aren't on secnews here.
> 

Good point.  I lose track, sometimes.

-- 
}:-)       Christopher Jahn
{:-(       http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

Sometimes you need a little finesse, sometimes you need a lot. 
0
Christopher
2/28/2005 6:07:23 AM
JDT wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2005 21:29:06 GMT, Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>JDT <jdten4@netscape.com> wrote in news:3da421hopfdajg1kj0flgq4g9gltprnu1r@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>Why does everyone quote so much material before putting in their
>>>response. 
>>
>>http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
> 
> 
> I read this.  I don't necessarily agree with the protocol, but I don't
> care.  I think a better solution would be to top post when you're
> quoting long threads to eliminate the need to scroll through long
> posts in order to read a short reply.  If the quoted material is short
> then bottom posting is fine.
> 
> Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent, so I
> don't see why it wouldn't work here.
> 
> 
Perhaps when you have been here for a few years, you will figure it out. 
  Do you start at the end of a book and read it back to chapter 1?  Do 
you read a page from the bottom up?  Top posting is counter intuitive. 
Note that you need NOT scroll through a post.  There are keystrokes that 
will take you to the end of the post where you will, 90% of the time, 
see the entire new material.
0
Ron
2/28/2005 6:19:55 AM
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:19:55 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Perhaps when you have been here for a few years, you will figure it out. 
>  Do you start at the end of a book and read it back to chapter 1?  Do 
>you read a page from the bottom up?  Top posting is counter intuitive. 
>Note that you need NOT scroll through a post.  There are keystrokes that 
>will take you to the end of the post where you will, 90% of the time, 
>see the entire new material.

I'm not going to win this argument, but my point is still valid.  I
see no need to quote endless posts, replies, and replies to replies.
Most people who are following the replies don't need to see that
either.

I suppose that the person new to the thread will need to read the
quoted material, but I only read the quoted material about 1% of the
time.  I skip right to the new stuff.  But I don't scroll.  If I have
to scroll, I just skip the post.

I really can't see how much would be lost if you snipped all of the
superfluous back and forth and just got right down to the answer--or
top post the answer.

But I know I won't win this argument, so I'm done.
0
JDT
2/28/2005 10:01:08 AM
Ron Hunter wrote:
> Perhaps when you have been here for a few years, you will figure it out. 
>  Do you start at the end of a book and read it back to chapter 1?  Do 
> you read a page from the bottom up?
No but I skim/skip pages where information is sparse...doing it over and 
over again on a busy thread is still tedious.

> Top posting is counter intuitive.
I disagree - its quite a rapid method of assimilating discussion if you 
are following the thread.  Of course perhaps its not so useful if you 
are first reading late posts on a thread.

> Note that you need NOT scroll through a post.  There are keystrokes that 
> will take you to the end of the post where you will, 90% of the time, 
> see the entire new material.
Don't know if the percentage is reliable but who cares.  Most stuff I 
see has multiple variations of the topic so assuming bottom posting 
often skips stuff in the middle.

The thought just occured to me tho...I wonder if you could have the 
T-Bird collapse (greek or some sort of thin marker) levels greater that 
a (per forum set) depth.  This would allow readers to see only the most 
recent posts content but would make it possible to refer back (in time) 
without having to navigate or locate to other messages?  This would help 
keep the quoted traffic on the screen to a minimum.

Perhaps it already does this...if so point me at it!

Cheers, Frank.
0
FrankHamersley
2/28/2005 12:09:37 PM
"JDT" <jdten4@netscape.com> wrote in message 
news:dnq521p62ts9dctoil7posb2b7qaotmidi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:19:55 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps when you have been here for a few years, you will figure it out.
>>  Do you start at the end of a book and read it back to chapter 1?  Do
>>you read a page from the bottom up?  Top posting is counter intuitive.
>
> I'm not going to win this argument, but my point is still valid.  I
> see no need to quote endless posts, replies, and replies to replies.
> Most people who are following the replies don't need to see that
> either.
>
> I suppose that the person new to the thread will need to read the
> quoted material, but I only read the quoted material about 1% of the
> time.  I skip right to the new stuff.  But I don't scroll.  If I have
> to scroll, I just skip the post.
>
> I really can't see how much would be lost if you snipped all of the
> superfluous back and forth and just got right down to the answer--or
> top post the answer.
>
> But I know I won't win this argument, so I'm done.

 I agree with you JDT.  I see bottom posting as such a hindrance especially 
when following a highly active thread. It is NOT counter-intuitive. Why 
would seeing the most recent contribution at the top of a page not be the 
norm? It's crazy to me but here I am bottom posting. 


0
mad
2/28/2005 1:27:07 PM
mad NATer wrote:
> "JDT" <jdten4@netscape.com> wrote in message 
> news:dnq521p62ts9dctoil7posb2b7qaotmidi@4ax.com...
> 
>>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:19:55 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps when you have been here for a few years, you will figure it out.
>>> Do you start at the end of a book and read it back to chapter 1?  Do
>>>you read a page from the bottom up?  Top posting is counter intuitive.
>>
>>I'm not going to win this argument, but my point is still valid.  I
>>see no need to quote endless posts, replies, and replies to replies.
>>Most people who are following the replies don't need to see that
>>either.
>>
>>I suppose that the person new to the thread will need to read the
>>quoted material, but I only read the quoted material about 1% of the
>>time.  I skip right to the new stuff.  But I don't scroll.  If I have
>>to scroll, I just skip the post.
>>
>>I really can't see how much would be lost if you snipped all of the
>>superfluous back and forth and just got right down to the answer--or
>>top post the answer.
>>
>>But I know I won't win this argument, so I'm done.
> 
> 
>  I agree with you JDT.  I see bottom posting as such a hindrance especially 
> when following a highly active thread. It is NOT counter-intuitive. Why 
> would seeing the most recent contribution at the top of a page not be the 
> norm? It's crazy to me but here I am bottom posting. 

because that way, you have *no idea* what was last said unless you 
*just* read the parent post.

-scratch
0
scratch
2/28/2005 2:40:44 PM
FrankHamersley wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps when you have been here for a few years, you will figure it 
>> out.  Do you start at the end of a book and read it back to chapter 
>> 1?  Do you read a page from the bottom up?
> 
> No but I skim/skip pages where information is sparse...doing it over and 
> over again on a busy thread is still tedious.
> 
>> Top posting is counter intuitive.
> 
> I disagree - its quite a rapid method of assimilating discussion if you 
> are following the thread.  Of course perhaps its not so useful if you 
> are first reading late posts on a thread.
> 
>> Note that you need NOT scroll through a post.  There are keystrokes 
>> that will take you to the end of the post where you will, 90% of the 
>> time, see the entire new material.
> 
> Don't know if the percentage is reliable but who cares.  Most stuff I 
> see has multiple variations of the topic so assuming bottom posting 
> often skips stuff in the middle.
> 
> The thought just occured to me tho...I wonder if you could have the 
> T-Bird collapse (greek or some sort of thin marker) levels greater that 
> a (per forum set) depth.  This would allow readers to see only the most 
> recent posts content but would make it possible to refer back (in time) 
> without having to navigate or locate to other messages?  This would help 
> keep the quoted traffic on the screen to a minimum.

Yes.  Someone posted a link to just such an extension recently.

> 
> Perhaps it already does this...if so point me at it!
> 
> Cheers, Frank.
0
Ron
2/28/2005 3:11:19 PM
On 25-Feb-2005, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:

> >>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
> >>having trouble with this one if they do not.
> >
> >
> > That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>
> No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version.
>   I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and
> unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.

Uninstalling and reinstalling means having the PC people go to each computer,
which costs a lot.   Upgrading is something that can normally be done by users.
0
Howard
2/28/2005 6:06:39 PM
On 28.02.2005 04:01, JDT wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> I really can't see how much would be lost if you snipped all of the
> superfluous back and forth and just got right down to the answer--or
> top post the answer.
> 
> But I know I won't win this argument, so I'm done.

You won by default.

Snipping is encouraged here on this particular server and it's in the
guidelines to do so. I think users get confused as to where exactly they
are as we also have the secnews server here as well where we encourage
and request NOT to snip ... :-)


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/28/2005 6:54:40 PM
On 28.02.2005 07:27, mad NATer wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

>  I agree with you JDT.  I see bottom posting as such a hindrance especially 
> when following a highly active thread. It is NOT counter-intuitive. Why 
> would seeing the most recent contribution at the top of a page not be the 
> norm? It's crazy to me but here I am bottom posting. 

Ok, say you have a thread with 12 replies all in chronological order and
then the next reply is at the top. Please tell us how to determine which
reply in the thread is being replied to? In a multi-thread the only
sensible way to reply is either interspersed or bottom-posted if you're
adding your reply in a general sense to the original topic.

And THIS is why we request bottom posting or interspersed posting in a
tech-support oriented group/forum. How many forums can you name where
additions are at the top? I haven't seen one yet. Must be a reason, 'eh?

How many exams have you taken where you write your answer(s) before the
question(s)? ;-)

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/28/2005 7:12:27 PM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> 
> How many exams have you taken where you write your answer(s) before the
> question(s)? ;-)
> 

Do theology courses count?
0
Rod
2/28/2005 7:43:06 PM
On 2005-02-28, JDT <jdten4@netscape.com> wrote:

> I read this.  I don't necessarily agree with the protocol, but I don't
> care.  I think a better solution would be to top post when you're
> quoting long threads to eliminate the need to scroll through long
> posts in order to read a short reply.  If the quoted material is short
> then bottom posting is fine.
>
> Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent, so I
> don't see why it wouldn't work here.

Top posting encourages the propogation of unnecessary quoted material, 
since the quoted material appears below the response, and out of sight 
often means out of mind as well. Although I often suspect that people fail 
to trim quoted material from sheer laziness.

Top posting separates your response from the context that it came from. 
The reader must search the quoted material -- often with a large quanitity 
of superfluous cruft, as noted above -- in order to determine the context 
of your response. This is tiresome and inefficient.

Top posting ignores the conversational paradigm of question/response. In 
normal conversation, a response comes after the question, not before.

Following top posted responses to multiple points in a message quickly 
becomes a nightmare of bouncing back and forth in the message, trying to 
determine the context of each point in the response. It reduces the impact 
of your response by making so difficult to follow.

Attributions quickly become confused in a thread of top posted responses. 
People become annoyed that a respondant attributes material to them that 
was actually witten by another person. The only way to figure it out is 
tediously wading through the quoted material at the end to put things back 
together in the proper sequence.

BTW, simple "bottom posting" is not considered appropriate either; rather, 
you should trim unnecessary material, leaving only enough to provide context 
and attribution, write your response, trim/quote/attribute the next point 
you wish to address, write your response to that point, 
trim/quote/attribute the next point you wish to address, write your 
response to that point, and so on. In that manner your response will 
follow a clear, easily understood conversational paradigm with no more 
quoted material than necessary, giving clear attribution to who said 
what, and when.   

-- 

John (john@os2.dhs.org)
0
John
2/28/2005 8:07:54 PM
On 2005-02-28, mad NATer <x@nospam.com> wrote:

> "JDT" <jdten4@netscape.com> wrote in message 
> news:dnq521p62ts9dctoil7posb2b7qaotmidi@4ax.com...

>> I really can't see how much would be lost if you snipped all of the
>> superfluous back and forth and just got right down to the answer--or
>> top post the answer.
>>
>> But I know I won't win this argument, so I'm done.

>  I agree with you JDT.  I see bottom posting as such a hindrance especially 
> when following a highly active thread. It is NOT counter-intuitive. Why 
> would seeing the most recent contribution at the top of a page not be the 
> norm? It's crazy to me but here I am bottom posting. 

The problem you see is that people have not made the effort to trim the 
quoted material so that it only includes what is pertinent to your 
response. This is true regardless of method (top/bottom/interleaved) 
of posting used.


-- 

John (john@os2.dhs.org)
0
John
2/28/2005 8:07:55 PM
Rod Engelsman wrote:

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> How many exams have you taken where you write your answer(s) before 
>> the question(s)? ;-)
>
> Do theology courses count?

Only omnipotent ones! ;-)

Then again, in such courses, what would be the purpose of a test! ;-)

-- 
A bird in the hand makes it difficult to blow your nose.
0
Andrew
2/28/2005 8:11:28 PM
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080704000705050204040404
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jay Garcia wrote:

> On 28.02.2005 04:01, JDT wrote:
>
>> I really can't see how much would be lost if you snipped all of the 
>> superfluous back and forth and just got right down to the answer--or 
>> top post the answer.
>>
>> But I know I won't win this argument, so I'm done.
>
> You won by default.
>
> Snipping is encouraged here on this particular server and it's in the 
> guidelines to do so. I think users get confused as to where exactly 
> they are as we also have the secnews server here as well where we 
> encourage and request NOT to snip ... :-)

It surely would help if you (general) were a little more consistent. 
After all what's good for the goose... ;-)

-- 
Honk If you want to see my finger

--------------080704000705050204040404
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Jay Garcia wrote:
<blockquote cite="midcvvpcg$os1@ripley.netscape.com" type="cite">On
28.02.2005 04:01, JDT wrote:<br>
  <br>
  <blockquote type="cite">I really can't see how much would be lost if
you snipped all of the superfluous back and forth and just got right
down to the answer--or top post the answer.<br>
    <br>
But I know I won't win this argument, so I'm done.<br>
  </blockquote>
<!---->You won by default.<br>
  <br>
Snipping is encouraged here on this particular server and it's in the
guidelines to do so. I think users get confused as to where exactly
they are as we also have the secnews server here as well where we
encourage and request NOT to snip ... :-)<br>
</blockquote>
It surely would help if you (general) were a little more consistent.
After all what's good for the goose... <span class="moz-smiley-s3"><span>
;-) </span></span><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Honk If you want to see my finger<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------080704000705050204040404--
0
Andrew
2/28/2005 8:11:49 PM
On 28-Feb-2005, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:

> > Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent, so I
> > don't see why it wouldn't work here.

I'm curious.   What newsgroups prefer top posting?

> Top posting encourages the propogation of unnecessary quoted material,
> since the quoted material appears below the response, and out of sight
> often means out of mind as well. Although I often suspect that people fail
> to trim quoted material from sheer laziness.

This is still a huge problem with bottom posting, except people browsing
newsgroups with excessive posting are often not inclined to page down to see if
there's something of interest on the bottom.

What's really a pain is when someone top posts, and I want to add something but
need to quote a couple of levels.   Now I've got to edit and move things around
to keep generations of posting making sense.


> Top posting separates your response from the context that it came from.
> The reader must search the quoted material -- often with a large quanitity
> of superfluous cruft, as noted above -- in order to determine the context
> of your response. This is tiresome and inefficient.

Most people browsing don't read through the whole quoted message each time.  
After all, they just saw it earlier in the thread.   If someone is inconsiderate
enough to include huge quoted messages, top quoting has its place.    I can see
why people do this in business correspondence, although it means that if I want
to print a reply, I sometimes get 3-4 sheets of quotes as well.


> BTW, simple "bottom posting" is not considered appropriate either; rather,
> you should trim unnecessary material, leaving only enough to provide context
> and attribution, write your response, trim/quote/attribute the next point
> you wish to address, write your response to that point,
> trim/quote/attribute the next point you wish to address, write your
> response to that point, and so on. In that manner your response will
> follow a clear, easily understood conversational paradigm with no more
> quoted material than necessary, giving clear attribution to who said
> what, and when.

The number 1 requirement of making clear posts is to consider the reader and
proof-read with the reader in mind.   But consideration is not a popular
characteristic.
0
Howard
2/28/2005 8:27:25 PM
It's all sheer laziness in this 21st century, fast paced, immediate 
rewards society!

Think back to the days of paper before computers. If you were going to 
get out your quilled pen and respond to your friend from far away you 
would take your parchment and scratch out your ideas. If you were 
responding to your friend you would be charged with the responsibility 
of providing the necessary context. If that entailed having to copy his 
words into your response then you would do so, often echoing it back in 
your own words thus showing understanding or a lack thereof. And after 
carefully crafting your reply you would seal up the letter and affix wax 
to it before handing it to a horseman to deliver in days or weeks hence. 
As such people took pains to be explicit because communication was not 
instantaneous!

The conversational paradigm of question/response is not that the 
response follows the question in that the response is devoid of the 
question, save perhaps a bit of context and only when required. One 
rarely parrots back the question when responding. And one did not bother 
to parrot back statements, pointing to them in attribution with 
childlike "Well you said this" statements. It was assumed that they 
remembered what they said. Then again, one generally was responding only 
towards another one and not a "many"...

The problem to me is lack of proper language skills - evidenced time and 
time again in the poor to atrocious spelling, punctuation, proper 
sentence forming and indeed lack of formation of intelligent points and 
arguments. This being mostly blamed on lack of time and poor typing 
skills, what is really surfacing is a genuine lack of caring about how 
you present yourself in this largely anonymous medium we call the 
Internet. I've witnessed extremely intelligent people come off as 
complete boobs when they connect to this medium. I'm not sure why 
exactly that is so. I understand some of the contributing factors but 
I'm left with the question of "Don't you care how this looks to other 
people reading?" without an adequate response. Perhaps their minds are 
busy trying to understand how exactly to respond - top posting, bottom 
posting or interspersed and how to apply that to real, face to face 
human conversation, something some people seem to do less and less of 
lately - I don't know...




-- 
In some cultures what I do would be considered normal.
0
Andrew
2/28/2005 8:30:42 PM
On 28-Feb-2005, Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote:

> Only omnipotent ones! ;-)
>
> Then again, in such courses, what would be the purpose of a test! ;-)

According to the Bible, God tested Abraham.

But I don't understand lots of the abilities and limitations of God (for
instance, He found a way to keep some of us from being tortured beyond all
understanding forever and ever without hope of parole.   That mechanism was
"sacrifice His son".   Of course!   Why didn't I think of that!)
0
Howard
2/28/2005 8:41:56 PM
On 28-Feb-2005, Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote:

> It's all sheer laziness in this 21st century, fast paced, immediate
> rewards society!

I prefer Ben Franklin's style of laziness.

If your laziness causes others to skip your post, then it was misguided
laziness.   Writing the post is work.   Editing it so that others want to read
it means your work wasn't wasted.
0
Howard
2/28/2005 8:53:11 PM
On 28-Feb-2005, Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote:

> The conversational paradigm of question/response is not that the
> response follows the question in that the response is devoid of the
> question, save perhaps a bit of context and only when required. One
> rarely parrots back the question when responding. And one did not bother
> to parrot back statements, pointing to them in attribution with
> childlike "Well you said this" statements. It was assumed that they
> remembered what they said. Then again, one generally was responding only
> towards another one and not a "many"...
>
> The problem to me is lack of proper language skills - evidenced time and
> time again in the poor to atrocious spelling, punctuation, proper
> sentence forming and indeed lack of formation of intelligent points and
> arguments.

Of course, if you read the original diaries of people such as Lewis and Clarke,
you will find that spelling hasn't always been a concern.
0
Howard
2/28/2005 8:54:27 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:

> On 28-Feb-2005, Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote:
>
>> Only omnipotent ones! ;-)
>>
>> Then again, in such courses, what would be the purpose of a test! ;-)
>
> According to the Bible, God tested Abraham.

That may be but my joke (which you are ruining BTW) was in the sense 
that the classes were for people who were already omnipotent... Oh never 
mind - it always ruins it when you have to explain it!

> But I don't understand lots of the abilities and limitations of God 
> (for instance, He found a way to keep some of us from being tortured 
> beyond all understanding forever and ever without hope of parole. That 
> mechanism was "sacrifice His son". Of course! Why didn't I think of that!)

I don't know - perhaps because you think logically?


-- 
If there is a god, he will understand why I don't believe in him.
0
Andrew
2/28/2005 8:56:01 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:

> Of course, if you read the original diaries of people such as Lewis 
> and Clarke, you will find that spelling hasn't always been a concern.

IIRC Lewis and Clarke did not profess to have as much education as we 
all (well mostly) do today...

Also, diaries were usually the form of writing that was not exposed to 
others...

-- 
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.
0
Andrew
2/28/2005 8:58:02 PM
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2005-02-28, JDT <jdten4@netscape.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I read this.  I don't necessarily agree with the protocol, but I don't
>>care.  I think a better solution would be to top post when you're
>>quoting long threads to eliminate the need to scroll through long
>>posts in order to read a short reply.  If the quoted material is short
>>then bottom posting is fine.
>>
>>Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent, so I
>>don't see why it wouldn't work here.
> 
> 
> Top posting encourages the propogation of unnecessary quoted material, 
> since the quoted material appears below the response, and out of sight 
> often means out of mind as well. Although I often suspect that people fail 
> to trim quoted material from sheer laziness.
> 
> Top posting separates your response from the context that it came from. 
> The reader must search the quoted material -- often with a large quanitity 
> of superfluous cruft, as noted above -- in order to determine the context 
> of your response. This is tiresome and inefficient.
> 
> Top posting ignores the conversational paradigm of question/response. In 
> normal conversation, a response comes after the question, not before.
> 
> Following top posted responses to multiple points in a message quickly 
> becomes a nightmare of bouncing back and forth in the message, trying to 
> determine the context of each point in the response. It reduces the impact 
> of your response by making so difficult to follow.
> 
> Attributions quickly become confused in a thread of top posted responses. 
> People become annoyed that a respondant attributes material to them that 
> was actually witten by another person. The only way to figure it out is 
> tediously wading through the quoted material at the end to put things back 
> together in the proper sequence.
> 
> BTW, simple "bottom posting" is not considered appropriate either; rather, 
> you should trim unnecessary material, leaving only enough to provide context 
> and attribution, write your response, trim/quote/attribute the next point 
> you wish to address, write your response to that point, 
> trim/quote/attribute the next point you wish to address, write your 
> response to that point, and so on. In that manner your response will 
> follow a clear, easily understood conversational paradigm with no more 
> quoted material than necessary, giving clear attribution to who said 
> what, and when.   
> 

Actually if the post starts out being responded to by top posting its 
just as organized as bottom posting. When the organization fails is when 
  a post is responded top post one time, bottom post next time, or 
visa-versa.

Top post is great for a newsgroup dedicated to technical support. The 
people doing the support don't have to scroll through pages and pages of 
old responses, to see the most recent. Makes answering support questions 
more efficient.

If on the other hand your on a newsgroup that is mostly normal 
conversation then bottom posting is fine. Its the way you read a letter.

So bottom posting has it place, and top posting has its place.

Bottom posting is what most people are use to, because its the way it 
was done when the Internet started. Had it started out top posting there 
would be no problem now.

I read certain newsgroups that "Demand" top posting and you will be 
chided for bottom posting. But they are Software support groups.

Even in the Macintosh groups for Netscape Mozilla were top posted until 
the Netscape and Moz Champs got fussed at so much they just gave up and 
told every one it was bottom posting or none.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://vpea.exis.net>
0
Phillip
2/28/2005 9:05:46 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 28-Feb-2005, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent, so I
>>>don't see why it wouldn't work here.
> 
> 
> I'm curious.   What newsgroups prefer top posting?

Any of The Microsoft Office newsgroups on the news.microsoft.com server 
"prefer" Top Posting.
-------------------------snip-------------------------




-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://vpea.exis.net>
0
Phillip
2/28/2005 9:08:45 PM
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> It's all sheer laziness in this 21st century, fast paced, immediate 
> rewards society!
> 
> Think back to the days of paper before computers. If you were going to 
> get out your quilled pen and respond to your friend from far away you 
> would take your parchment and scratch out your ideas. If you were 
> responding to your friend you would be charged with the responsibility 
> of providing the necessary context. If that entailed having to copy his 
> words into your response then you would do so, often echoing it back in 
> your own words thus showing understanding or a lack thereof. And after 
> carefully crafting your reply you would seal up the letter and affix wax 
> to it before handing it to a horseman to deliver in days or weeks hence. 
> As such people took pains to be explicit because communication was not 
> instantaneous!
> 
> The conversational paradigm of question/response is not that the 
> response follows the question in that the response is devoid of the 
> question, save perhaps a bit of context and only when required. One 
> rarely parrots back the question when responding. And one did not bother 
> to parrot back statements, pointing to them in attribution with 
> childlike "Well you said this" statements. It was assumed that they 
> remembered what they said. Then again, one generally was responding only 
> towards another one and not a "many"...
> 
> The problem to me is lack of proper language skills - evidenced time and 
> time again in the poor to atrocious spelling, punctuation, proper 
> sentence forming and indeed lack of formation of intelligent points and 
> arguments. This being mostly blamed on lack of time and poor typing 
> skills, what is really surfacing is a genuine lack of caring about how 
> you present yourself in this largely anonymous medium we call the 
> Internet. I've witnessed extremely intelligent people come off as 
> complete boobs when they connect to this medium. I'm not sure why 
> exactly that is so. I understand some of the contributing factors but 
> I'm left with the question of "Don't you care how this looks to other 
> people reading?" without an adequate response. Perhaps their minds are 
> busy trying to understand how exactly to respond - top posting, bottom 
> posting or interspersed and how to apply that to real, face to face 
> human conversation, something some people seem to do less and less of 
> lately - I don't know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
Not everyone is Rhode's Scholar.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://vpea.exis.net>
0
Phillip
2/28/2005 9:10:15 PM
On 28-Feb-2005, "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T" <pjones@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> Not everyone is Rhode's Scholar.

Why would a scholarship named after Cecil Rhodes be spelled with an apostrophe
before the "s"?
0
Howard
2/28/2005 9:18:20 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 28-Feb-2005, "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T" <pjones@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Not everyone is Rhode's Scholar.
> 
> 
> Why would a scholarship named after Cecil Rhodes be spelled with an apostrophe
> before the "s"?
caught that , huh. ;-)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://vpea.exis.net>
0
Phillip
2/28/2005 9:43:53 PM
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:

> Not everyone is Rhode's Scholar.

Yeah it shows! ;-)

Then again one need not be a Rhode's Scholar...

-- 
I used to be a bartender at the Betty Ford Clinic.
0
Andrew
2/28/2005 10:05:42 PM
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:

> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>> On 28-Feb-2005, "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T" <pjones@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not everyone is Rhode's Scholar.
>>
>> Why would a scholarship named after Cecil Rhodes be spelled with an 
>> apostrophe before the "s"?
>
> caught that , huh. ;-)

Yeah and I followed it. You know I've often heard the phrase "Rhode's 
Scholar" but never seen it in print. Also never knew exactly what one 
was. Looking it up I see "A student who holds a scholarship established 
by the will of Cecil J. Rhodes that permits attendance at Oxford 
University for a period of two or three years" and wonder why only that 
sort of scholarship is so called out...

-- 
I love defenseless animals, especially in a good gravy
0
Andrew
2/28/2005 10:09:01 PM
On 28.02.2005 15:05, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Even in the Macintosh groups for Netscape Mozilla were top posted until 
> the Netscape and Moz Champs got fussed at so much they just gave up and 
> told every one it was bottom posting or none.

First of all you're dead wrong about top posting and support groups.
Bottom posting was the desired and requested tradition on the secure
secnews server since the beginning with the exception of the Mac support
groups (figures, the ONLY one).

And ...

No "Champ" ever made the statement "..bottom posting or none". We've
always advocated and requested bottom posting on the secure server and
NEVER, I repeat NEVER have purposely refused to answer a question
because of posting habits.

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/28/2005 10:43:17 PM
On 28.02.2005 15:08, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On 28-Feb-2005, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent, so I
>>>>don't see why it wouldn't work here.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm curious.   What newsgroups prefer top posting?
> 
> Any of The Microsoft Office newsgroups on the news.microsoft.com server 
> "prefer" Top Posting.
> -------------------------snip-------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 

You should always adhere to the wishes of the support groups regardless
of personal posting habits and desires. Courtesy prevails ...


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
2/28/2005 10:44:43 PM
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> 
>>On 28-Feb-2005, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent, so I
>>>>don't see why it wouldn't work here.
>>
>>
>>I'm curious.   What newsgroups prefer top posting?
> 
> 
> Any of The Microsoft Office newsgroups on the news.microsoft.com server 
> "prefer" Top Posting.

Well, doesn't Outlook top post by default?  that's probably why.

-scratch
0
scratch
2/28/2005 11:19:39 PM
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 25-Feb-2005, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of people
>>>>having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's an excellent reason to not upgrade.
>>
>>No, just do what makes sense and uninstall, then install a new version.
>>  I cannot understand your making such a blanket, illogical and
>>unexplained statement. Watever.  Geez.
> 
> 
> Uninstalling and reinstalling means having the PC people go to each computer,
> which costs a lot.   Upgrading is something that can normally be done by users.

normal users can't do it themselves?  it's one extra step!

-scratch
0
scratch
2/28/2005 11:24:06 PM
_Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
> No "Champ" ever made the statement "..bottom posting or none". We've
> always advocated and requested bottom posting on the secure server and
> NEVER, I repeat NEVER have purposely refused to answer a question
> because of posting habits.

I have. :-)
-- 
Chris Ilias - Mozilla Champion
Email - 20041115@ilias.ca
Netscape/Mozilla Links <http://ilias.ca>
Mozilla Help <http://ilias.ca/mozilla/>
0
Chris
2/28/2005 11:32:24 PM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in news:d000g6$or1
@ripley.netscape.com:

> Writing the post is work.   Editing it so that others want to read
> it means your work wasn't wasted.
> 

Words to live by, I think.  What you say doesn't matter if no one is 
listening to you.

-- 
}:-)       Christopher Jahn
{:-(       http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't. 
0
Christopher
3/1/2005 12:30:37 AM
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in
news:d000ii$1681@ripley.netscape.com: 

> Of course, if you read the original diaries of people such as Lewis
> and Clarke, you will find that spelling hasn't always been a concern.

Back then, there were few "accepted" spellings; if you could pronounce the 
word from what was written, that was enough.

-- 
}:-)       Christopher Jahn
{:-(       http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

"Well, anything will explode if you run enough current through it."
Luke Campbell 
0
Christopher
3/1/2005 12:31:49 AM
"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T" wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On 28-Feb-2005, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent,
>>>> so I don't see why it wouldn't work here.
>>
>> I'm curious.   What newsgroups prefer top posting?
> 
> Any of The Microsoft Office newsgroups on the news.microsoft.com
> server "prefer" Top Posting.

What do you expect from the outfit that brought us Outhouse
Excess.  Microsoft always wants to abuse any pre-existing
standard.  This is called 'innovation'.

-- 
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
 the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on 
 "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the 
 "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

0
CBFalconer
3/1/2005 12:46:50 AM
scratch wrote:
> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
> 
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>>> On 28-Feb-2005, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Top posting in this situation works in other groups I frequent, so I
>>>>> don't see why it wouldn't work here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm curious.   What newsgroups prefer top posting?
>>
>>
>>
>> Any of The Microsoft Office newsgroups on the news.microsoft.com 
>> server "prefer" Top Posting.
> 
> 
> Well, doesn't Outlook top post by default?  that's probably why.
> 
> -scratch
Don't know about OutLook (not Express), I've only looked at Entourage 
once or twice but I believe it allows for either.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://vpea.exis.net>
0
Phillip
3/1/2005 12:55:30 AM
On 28.02.2005 17:32, Chris Ilias wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>> No "Champ" ever made the statement "..bottom posting or none". We've
>> always advocated and requested bottom posting on the secure server and
>> NEVER, I repeat NEVER have purposely refused to answer a question
>> because of posting habits.
> 
> I have. :-)

Maybe I should have qualified the statement to say "NS Champ". 8-)


-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/1/2005 1:53:17 AM
Leonidas Jones wrote:
> JT wrote:
> 
>> Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I would recommend uninstalling first, there have been reports of 
>>> people having trouble with this one if they do not.
>>>
>>> Lee
>>
>>
>>
>> Firefox will not be ready for prime time until updates are just a
>> matter of downloading the setup.exe and clicking on it, while
>> automatically preserving prior preferences, plugins, extensions, etc.
>> Having to uninstall first, or having to unzip and move only certain
>> files to certain directories are simply not an acceptable requirements
>> for the masses. 
>> Now, having said that, I should also add that Firefox and Mozilla are
>> fantastic browsers for which the open source community should be
>> proud.  Kudos to all involved.
>>
>>
> 
> You have a point, but, ready or not, its the second most popular browser 
> in use on the internet.
> 
> A lot of these problem have to do with the nature of Open Source, free 
> programs, as opposed to commercial programs.
> 
> Lee

First off, let me just report, after following all the debate here, that 
I have just downloaded Firefox 1.0.1,  uninstalled the old Firefox 1.0, 
and installed the new version.  No problems whatsoever with any of that 
at all. Plugins and extensions are all working fine - even the ones 
marked as 'Disabled - not compatible with Firefox 1.0.1' :-))

But I do wonder if 50yo guys like me have some advantage over much 
younger guys.  Back in the 1980's, my company gave all people who were 
my age at the time (i.e 30+) a lot of training on how to work in a  DOS, 
and then later, a Windows environment. For me, this has proved to be 
invaluable training.  But the younger guys, especially those straight 
out of university, were expected to be fully knowledgeable about these 
things and so got no systematic training. OK, they could point and 
click, but never seemed to really understand what was going on behind 
the scenes.

Now I notice my own kids and their friends (all over 23 yo and been to 
university) seem to struggle with the kinds of issues raised in this 
thread.  They don't seem to be, what I would call adept,  at basic file 
management or file editing.

Another thing that surprises me here is when Firefox/Thunderbird users 
(who are not part of the masses - I think Firefox only has 5-10% of the 
browser market?) complain about a simple uninstall of an earlier version 
before installing the later version.  How do these guys then deal with 
installing themes and extensions?  How do they go about editing their 
personal profiles/preferences (e.g. userChrome.css)? How do they 
configure their Mail and Newsgroup settings?  To me it seems if you want 
to get the most out of Mozilla stuff, you have to be a bit savvy.

To do an uninstall is the least troublesome of all these matters.

Sorry, I'm going on.  I'll stop here. Cant type any more.  My finger 
arthritis is beginning to give me gip!

Ed






0
Ed
3/1/2005 3:16:43 AM
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>>
>>
>>Well, doesn't Outlook top post by default?  that's probably why.
>>
>>-scratch
> 
> Don't know about OutLook (not Express), I've only looked at Entourage 
> once or twice but I believe it allows for either.
> 

right, but i think top posting is the default, which most users probably 
don't bother to change.

-scratch
0
scratch
3/1/2005 6:35:28 AM
On 28-Feb-2005, scratch <scratch@the-pentagon.com> wrote:

> > Any of The Microsoft Office newsgroups on the news.microsoft.com server
> > "prefer" Top Posting.
>
> Well, doesn't Outlook top post by default?

Yes, since it is designed for business e-mail.

> that's probably why.

No, because Outlook doesn't handle newsgroups.   But Outlook Express has the
same design with less reason.
0
Howard
3/1/2005 4:06:00 PM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 28.02.2005 17:32, Chris Ilias wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>_Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>
>>>No "Champ" ever made the statement "..bottom posting or none". We've
>>>always advocated and requested bottom posting on the secure server and
>>>NEVER, I repeat NEVER have purposely refused to answer a question
>>>because of posting habits.
>>
>>I have. :-)
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have qualified the statement to say "NS Champ". 8-)
> 
> 

Well, I will usually try to give an answer, regardless of posting 
habits.  It is true though when I can;t follow the sense of a thread 
well, I'll give up more easily!

Lee
-- 
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
0
Leonidas
3/2/2005 1:09:44 AM
On 01.03.2005 19:09, Leonidas Jones wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 28.02.2005 17:32, Chris Ilias wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
>> 
>>>_Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>>
>>>>No "Champ" ever made the statement "..bottom posting or none". We've
>>>>always advocated and requested bottom posting on the secure server and
>>>>NEVER, I repeat NEVER have purposely refused to answer a question
>>>>because of posting habits.
>>>
>>>I have. :-)
>> 
>> 
>> Maybe I should have qualified the statement to say "NS Champ". 8-)
>> 
>> 
> 
> Well, I will usually try to give an answer, regardless of posting 
> habits.  It is true though when I can;t follow the sense of a thread 
> well, I'll give up more easily!
> 
> Lee

Well, the way I see it is that since I'm not within rock throwing
distance, may as well answer the question instead. :-)

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion - Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Posting Guidelines - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html
0
Jay
3/2/2005 1:51:03 AM
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 01.03.2005 19:09, Leonidas Jones wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> 
>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>On 28.02.2005 17:32, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>_Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No "Champ" ever made the statement "..bottom posting or none". We've
>>>>>always advocated and requested bottom posting on the secure server and
>>>>>NEVER, I repeat NEVER have purposely refused to answer a question
>>>>>because of posting habits.
>>>>
>>>>I have. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe I should have qualified the statement to say "NS Champ". 8-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, I will usually try to give an answer, regardless of posting 
>>habits.  It is true though when I can;t follow the sense of a thread 
>>well, I'll give up more easily!
>>
>>Lee
> 
> 
> Well, the way I see it is that since I'm not within rock throwing
> distance, may as well answer the question instead. :-)
> 
Jay,
   It's March.  Where's NS8???
0
Ron
3/2/2005 6:32:09 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

upgrading from firefox 1.0 to firefox 1.0.1
followup to grc.techtalk upgrading from firefox 1.0 to firefox 1.0.1 http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/007689.html ----------------------------------------------------------- Quote ----------------------------------------------------------- Steps for upgrading from Firefox 1.0 to Firefox 1.0.1 Automatic Update (Windows only) Windows users 1. Before beginning the update, be sure to complete any work you're doing in Firefox 1.0 and close any extra tabs or windows you may have open. 2. If you see a small red icon update icon on the right end of your menub...

Problem with some links since upgrade Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1
Name: Nick Product: Firefox Summary: Problem with some links since upgrade Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1 Comments: Hi, I encountered some problem to click links that i used to be able to click with the previous Firefox, i paste a link to let you experience it too http://shop33455054.taobao.com/?catId=39839020&queryType=cat&categoryName=%C8%AB%B3%A1175%D4%AA+C1RCA&browseType=#pagebar as you can see the sub-categories can't be browsed (talking about the menu on the left side) i tried again with the pr...

Never experienced so many crashes as with version Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1
Name: Kåre Nilsen Email: kaanil3atyahoodotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Never experienced so many crashes as with version Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1 Comments: Forefox which used to be so stable and a dream to use has become a nightmare to use for me! Unfortunately I downloaded and installed the above mentioned version, and I strongly regret it! It crashes daily! This version must be so full of bugs that it is very surprising that you folks even dared to release this version. I am definitely going back to ei...

Mozilla 1.7/1.8a2, Thunderbird 0.6/0.7, Firefox 0.9 and Impos/2 2.1
All recent builds (Mozilla 1.7/1.8a2, Thunderbird 0.6/0.7, Firefox 0.9) crash Impos/2 2.1 as soon they are started, or the other way round (Impos/2 started afterwards) 06-22-2004 22:38:55 SYS3175 PID 002d TID 0001 Slot 006e D:\IMPOS21\IMPOS.EXE c0000005 00069d94 P1=00000001 P2=0000000d P3=XXXXXXXX P4=XXXXXXXX EAX=00000001 EBX=1c865dec ECX=1c86866c EDX=00000004 ESI=1c865dec EDI=1c87ef80 DS=0053 DSACC=d0f3 DSLIM=7fffffff ES=0053 ESACC=d0f3 ESLIM=7fffffff FS=150b FSACC=00f3 FSLIM=00000030 GS=2b43 GSACC=10f3 GSLIM=00003fff CS:EIP=005b:00069d94 CSACC=d0df CSL...

Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.1 Cancelled, Firefox and Thunderbird 1.0.2 Coming
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.1 Cancelled, Firefox and Thunderbird 1.0.2 Coming http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6247 ----------------------------------------------------------- Quote ----------------------------------------------------------- Asa Dotzler has announced that Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.1 has been cancelled and Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 and Thunderbird 1.0.2 releases are on the way. Asa explains, "We shipped the security update for Firefox 1.0 three weeks ago with the intention of shipping the Thunderbird and Mozilla Suite upates soon after. Well, just as we we...

Mozilla Firefox up to 1.0.6 and Mozilla Thunderbird up to 1.0 url string obfuscation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear lists, During a web application audit for a customer I detected a design error in the applications of the Mozilla suite. I was testing very long URL requests what I am usually do with a terminal emulation (e.g. Telnet or NetCat) or tools as like Mini-Browser. After I have found a suspicous computation of my input at server side I tried to validate this one with my web browser. Since the 0.9 release my default browser is Mozilla Firefox, currently running in the up-to-date version 1.0.6. After I have entered the _v...

stalled transfer Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060425 SUSE/1.5.0.3-7 Firefox/1.5.0.3
I experience stalled or no download of all (not only specific web-sites) using firefox while another browser "Konquereor" is working normally. Firefox is looking up.. connecting... transferring and then stalled sometimes I get the message "I cant find the server", surprisingly because the status shows transferring, or a login window for the router shows up what has not been seen with the other web browser. A second Linux PC in the network is working as supposed, the router is wide open... connection settings are already checked. May be anybody has a hint? ...

stalled or no download: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060425 SUSE/1.5.0.3-7 Firefox/1.5.0.3
I experience stalled or no download of all (not only specific web-sites) using firefox while another browser "Konquereor" is working normally. Firefox is looking up.. connecting... transfering and then stalled sometimes I get the message "I cant find the server", suprisingly because the status shows transfering, or a login window for the router shows up what has not been seen with the other web browser. A second Linux PC in the network is working as supposed, the router is wide open... connection settings are alredy checked. May be anybody has a hint? Ber...

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nl; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2
Name: R. Bijster Product: Firefox Summary: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nl; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2 Comments: I want to report that Windowsbrowser V 6.0.2900_SP2, 12 seconds faster started then FireFoxbrowser. Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nl; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2 ...

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11
Name: Greul, Albert Email: albertdotgreulatgooglemaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11 Comments: Hallo zusammen, habe soeben das Neue update installiert. Seit diesem Zeitpunkt funktioniert die Druckerkommunikation zwischen Laptop und Drucker über mein W-Lan nicht mehr!! Vorher funktionierte alles tadellos. Bitte um Beseitigung des Problems. Es grüßt Sie(noch)freundlich Albert Greul Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1.11) Gec...

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.4; pt-BR; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070206 Firefox/3.0.1
Name: guilherme barcellos Product: Firefox Summary: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.4; pt-BR; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070206 Firefox/3.0.1 Comments: 3.0.1 version How to put search on the tool bar? 3.0.1 can't put the upload pics or videios @ work (IP 10.0.0.15). Works fine @ home for flickr, youtube, wordpress, etc. Why is it? Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.4; pt-BR; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070206 Firefox/3.0.1 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ ...

Firefox 1.5.0.9, Firefox 2.0.0.1 and Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 Security & Stability Updates
As part of Mozilla Corporation�s ongoing stability and security update process, Firefox 1.5.0.9, Firefox 2.0.0.1 and Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 are now available for Windows, Mac, and Linux for free download from getfirefox.com (http://www.getfirefox.com) & getthunderbird.com (http://www.getthunderbird.com). We strongly recommend that all Firefox users upgrade to this latest release. This update is available immediately in 41 languages including Spanish, Japanese, Arabic, Hungarian and more. Note: Firefox 1.5.0.x will be maintained with security and stability updates until Apr...

Firefox 1.5.0.9, Firefox 2.0.0.1 and Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 Security & Stability Updates
As part of Mozilla Corporation�s ongoing stability and security update process, Firefox 1.5.0.9, Firefox 2.0.0.1 and Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 are now available for Windows, Mac, and Linux for free download from getfirefox.com (http://www.getfirefox.com) & getthunderbird.com (http://www.getthunderbird.com). We strongly recommend that all Firefox users upgrade to this latest release. This update is available immediately in 41 languages including Spanish, Japanese, Arabic, Hungarian and more. Note: Firefox 1.5.0.x will be maintained with security and stability updates until Apr...

Mozilla Firefox 1.1, Mozilla Thunderbird 1.1 and XULRunner Release Plans
followup to grc.techtalk Mozilla Firefox 1.1, Mozilla Thunderbird 1.1 and XULRunner Release Plans http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6370 ----------------------------------------------------------- Quote ----------------------------------------------------------- Asa Dotzler has posted some plans for the forthcoming Mozilla Firefox 1.1, Mozilla Thunderbird 1.1 and XULRunner releases <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.mozilla.devel.seamonkey/5182> to the netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey newsgroup. Firefox 1.1 will be the first major update to the Mozilla Fou...

Upgrade OES 1.0.0 to 1.0.1 / sp3 to sp4
I need to upgrade 1 OES Netware 1.0.0 server to 1.0.1. Is NW65sp4a.exe the best way to upgrade the OES server? Some documentation says to use the iso, the forums say use the .exe ? Thanks for any advice. The iso is for new installs, the .exe is the upgrade for existing servers. NW65SP4a is for the Netware kernel, is that what you are using ? Cheers Dave -- Dave Parkes [NSCS] Occasionally resident at http://support-forums.novell.com/ Yes - I'm using the Netware kernel - thanks for the response. Would I use the iso to upgrade from nw60sp4 ? Yes. -- Andre...

Web resources about - Upgrade to Firefox 1.0.1? - netscape.mozilla.general

Windows Anytime Upgrade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Windows Anytime Upgrade (WAU) was an upgrade method offered by Microsoft and selected licensed resellers to users who intended to upgrade their ...


President Obama's Facebook Page Upgrades To Timeline
Yes, we can upgrade to timeline. U.S. President Barack Obama's Facebook page has the new layout.

Update on Android Ice Cream Sandwich upgrades
HTC has been working hard to get its Ice Cream Sandwich upgrades ready, and we’re excited to announce that our first round of ICS upgrades will ...

Four Reasons to Upgrade to the New Share Dialog for iOS
... as friend tagging and privacy controls. 2. A faster and more native sharing experience Pinterest and popular iOS game 4 Pics 1 Word upgraded ...

More Streams: Facebook to Upgrade App Directory, App About Pages Soon
Over 50,000 applications have been added to the Facebook application directory since it first launched two years ago, and Facebook says it’s ...

Search Twitter - upgrade
... here Search Refresh Laura Tobin @ Lauratobin1 2m The only way to get through today is chocolate, I'm going to start small with baby & upgrade ...

Brain Upgrade - Improve Concentration and Relieve Stress! on the App Store on iTunes
Get Brain Upgrade - Improve Concentration and Relieve Stress! on the App Store. See screenshots and ratings, and read customer reviews.

upgrade - Flickr - Photo Sharing!
... Flickr. We noticed that you may be using an unsupported browser. All the basics will still work, but to get the most out of Flickr please upgrade ...

ModBook Upgrade by TechRestore - YouTube
http://www.techrestore.com/ - TechRestore Video - Here is the world's first Modbook upgrade video - TechRestore stop-motion style, of course! ...

Resources last updated: 11/28/2015 12:48:37 PM