On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 04:36, Rob Unsworth wrote:
> When I first saw this sig I was all for supporting the FSF in this
> campaign. That was until I read the web page. I found that in part it
> is self defeating, because it contains the following.
>
> "Receiving Word attachments is bad for you because they can carry
> viruses........"
>
> Two paragraphs later
>
> "To convert the file to HTML using Word is simple......."
>
> Apparently the FSF oppose receiving a virus sent with a Word
> document, but if the virus is sent via HTML, thats OK.
I'm missing something here... In what way would a word macro virus be
converted into anything html? I think you don't quite know the
technology (or maybe you know something that no one else knows).
> Bill G must have laughed himself to sleep after reading that.
After reading your message, yes.
> The FSF will get no support from me on this one.
There are many reasons not to like the FSF. This is not one of them.
--
"Khaaaaamaaayyyy, Haaaaamaaaayyyy, HAAAAAAAAA!!!!!"
-- Goku, 'Dragon Ball'
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
