| Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174444 is a reply to message #174439] |
Sat, 11 June 2011 20:50  |
Michael Fesser
Messages: 215
Registered: September 2010
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
.oO(Twayne)
> Michael Fesser <netizen(at)gmx(dot)de> typed:
>> .oO(Twayne)
>>
>>> Secret links such as that one could be anythng but one
>>> thing they always are is useless and of no use, so why
>>> click?
>>
>> On a properly configured and maintained system just
>> opening a URL in a browser can't do any harm.
>
> Oh, it definitely could do you harm. Once you log onto a web site, it has
> all it needs to send youi whatever it wants to. You need some more education
> there, too.
First, I don't log onto anything just by opening a website. Second, of
course it can send me anything it wants - every website can do that!
Even your "trusted" sites may send you garbage.
The question is what your browser does with the received data and if it
may become a hazard for your machine. But this would require several
things: A broken browser with known security holes, a malicious site
with an exploit for exactly that hole, an improperly configured system
(e.g. admin account for the daily work) and maybe even more.
I consider my system pretty safe, so I don't have to worry about
clicking on unknown links.
>> After all
>> it's just about displaying some textual content in a web
>> browser! If you're paranoid, the Web is the wrong place
>> for you.
>
> Actually, it's the wrong place for you by the sound of it. Yes, I'm paranoid
> about hidden sites.
And you consider "not hidden" sites more safe? Never heard about
malicious ads, injected invisible iframes and such stuff? You can't
really trust any site at all (unless you use a text browser or so).
>>>> In my sig there's another bare and untrusted link - you
>>>> can click it, if you have the balls! SCNR
>
> You couldn't possibly have anything I would be interested in so I'll never
> bother to click on YOUR links, no matter what.
That's why it was in my sig, it was not part of the posting's content.
> Do YOU click on links that
> have nothing of interest to you?
Sometimes, because how should I know what the URL has to offer before I
open it?
>>> More importantly, your sig is spam.
>>
>> Wrong. Obviously you don't know what 'spam' means. And
>> even if I wanted to advertise something - in my sig I can
>> do whatever I want, it just should be beneath an on-topic
>> posting if possible.
>
> No, that's correct and in several definitions plus the netiquette RFC you'll
> find that it can indeed be considered spam. It's "bulk" (sent to anyone who
> opens your post),
Given that, every sig is "bulk".
> nothing I want, not relevant to me, and in general useless
> to me.
Most sigs are not what you want, not relevant to you, and in general
useless to you. That's why they're sigs!
> That meets the definitions of UCE and UBE.
The netiquette just defines the recommended format of a sig (max. 4x72
chars and a '-- ' delimiter), it says nothing about the content (except
maybe for not being rude and such things). But it's exactly the right
place for stuff like personal information, a daily joke, a link to the
own website etc.
Micha
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]