🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <407o60$amt@data.interserv.net>,
William Rini <billman@centcon.com> wrote:
>cbbrown@io.org (Christopher B. Browne) wrote:
>>Since they basically control things at both ends of the connection,
>>there's essentially no way to tell without using something like an
>>RS-232 sniffer, or disassembling the code.

>No way to tell other than the fact that Inter@ctive Magazine and
>several other publications have tried it and they all have come to the
>conclusion that the info that was transmitted was the info the RW
>asked if it could send.  Of course everybody keeps ignoring that fact
>so that they can go off on these wild joyrides with reality.  

The fact that Inter@ctive magazine, which carries large amounts of
Microsoft advertising, reviewed a beta version of Windows/95 that was
produced after the issue was widely known proves nothing at all about
the nature of the process in earlier betas.  The early betas did not
ask about the procedure first.  The fact the later ones do is proof
the process has been modified and who is to say what else was changed?
The word of Microsoft is about as valuable as that of the average used
car dealer.

>I said it before and I will say it again, post something new or quit
>wasting bandwidth with the same old speculation on what MS might have
>the capability to do.  [ . . . ]

I agree that this thread is getting old.  Whatever potential there was
for abuse has been almost certainly eliminated by the publicity the issue
has received.

Max
-- 
.----------------------------------------+----------------------------------.
|  /\  /\/  Max Bell <mbell@europa.com>  | Help save the Net.  Support your |
| /  \/ /\  http://www.europa.com/~mbell | local Internet Service Provider! |
`----------------------------------------+----------------------------------'