Re: Anyone else notice that Swen is slowing down?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Anyone else notice that Swen is slowing down?
- From: "Michael C." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:25:05 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] E1A5KJG-0001QM-00@jaguar>
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <Cdzb.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <Bvoq.3Sr.email@example.com> <C8zv.QP.firstname.lastname@example.org> <CbnG.email@example.com> <CbQH.5Jo.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Cdzb.email@example.com>
John Hasler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Kjetil writes:
> > But you run the risk of making a lot of unpriviliged power users very
> > angry if you do that.
By forcing people to work around noexec, you make it easier to run
something they shouldn't. IIUC, by working around the problem, the
methods used don't require chmoding the file first.
> Such power users should be able to have the noexec removed on request. Of
> course, they will be given a lecture and if they screw up will get no
I wasn't aware that you can do this (unless you maintain different
partitions for each user.)
> > But I think I'll run home to mom and dad and do that on their
> > machine... :-)
> They are exactly who it is for.
> > I think that's the wrong question to ask... I think the question is "will
> > Linux vendors obey a market that wants executable files to be executed
> > from email software if the user clicks on it?"
> Does the market really want that? Why? (That's an honest question. While
> I know this feature exists on Windows, I've never seen an example of what
> it is for.)
I've seen plenty of examples of what this feature is used for, which is
one of several reasons that I typically avoid MS. How else is a virus
supposed to propagate?
Registered Linux User #303915 http://counter.li.org/