In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<zIR3f.2561$tV6.223@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, BillW50 wrote:

>Hi Moe... It must have been along time since you have either Updated
>a Windows machine or actually had used one.

Yup - got rid of that crap in 1992. It's so much easier when the
staff at the non-profit I occasionally help (who knows I'm working on
computers) comes by wailing about the latest mall-ware infestation and
is asking for help - sorry, I don't do windoze. Funny how the two servers
I've set up for them (which _don't_ run windoze) just keep on working.

>As this used to be MS' SOP, but now they lock them down tight (since
>the XP SP2 anyway).

So - all of the problems reported on Bugtraq must refer to earlier
versions. Funny that it doesn't look that way.

>The tradeoff of course is that newbies can't get anything to work
>anymore.

I dunno - last month or so when there was yet another worm problem, the
local news radio station has a quick interview with the klowns who run
the weekly computer help show (actually, they run a chain of stores
here in the Phoenix metro area) who are telling people to get the latest
virus update, but they _still_ are recommending people not get SP-2
because of all the things it breaks.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8859-1

I've never considered them an authority.

>I use HTML email when I need to use tables, bullets, newsletters,
>pictures, etc. It's all part of the MIME standard.

Actually you should check the standards documents - MIME is _still_ a
draft standard (RFC2045 - 2049) - even though it's been through several
re-writes (RFC1341 - June 1992, RFC1521 - Sept. 1993) and the current
drafts from November 1996).

I also use a simple filter on the mail server to reject any HTML mail
before it's accepted for delivery by the server.

>Plain text is about 50 years old now.

Oh, really?

>It is time for some to quit hanging on to the old past. As it only makes
>one ill.

I've yet to see a convincing need for HTML - thanks to

>As modern computers have more power than yesteryear's mainframes. It is
>time some people actually start using all of that computing power
>and stop wasting it.

Apparently you feel it necessary to use that computing power to draw
pictures of words - I only need to see the words themselves in raw text.
I really do find other uses for my CPU cycles.

>> Some of us don't use microsoft products

>And some of us do and we also have used other OS in our time as
>well. And there is nothing wrong with Microsoft products per se.

Then you are welcome to use them. Just don't expect everyone else to,
and don't expect others not to laugh at this.

>Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
>-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

Never got into WordStar - but if that's all you are touting, there are a
number of applications that emulate it, and run on many other operating
systems. One example might be 'jed' which runs on anything that can have
the 'slang' library (DOS, doze, OS/2, old and new Mac/OS, VAX/VMS, UNIX
and clones such as *BSD and Linux).

Old guy