I tired to send an e-mail on an issue to GCHQ via the mighty page link.
The error reported by my mail client is that the recipant is invaleid <"">
Thunderbird showed the addresses as such:
shield"@sasclan.org; magician@telenet.be; james@sasclan.org; sasen4cer@sasclan.org
on one line. Much the same when I tested the Sgt link to double check.
I have no clue why this is doing it, I don't use any other mail client so I can't test it with another one. Just for referance the related code is on line 415 of the source; but I'm unable to see any thing that could cause it. Is this a specific issue to the netscape/mozilla style mail clients or does everyone else have this problem ???
Time I reorder my address books any way...
It does work with Outlook Express. I am getting the same thing as you Spidey, with the " next to shield's name. Weird.
Well, it works for me an that's in Outlook.
Do this test, go to View Source, find the right place by searching for GCHQ and see if the link is correctly specified in there, or if there is an extra "
For me, when I do View Source it looks exactly correct.
Aye that was the first thing I checked.
It's basicly a ancher href'd mailto that has address; address; address; apart of a 1560 char long line making up each list on the page. (roughly line #415)
Not very familer with mailto but it looks fine to me.
Now how on mars there is one line in the source some where down further that is approx 65523 char's long and on one line I will never know!
It's probably a bug in your browser, use a proper one.
did you just tell a BSD user his browser ins't proper?
Note to self:
Start fire, get marshmellows, sit back, enjoy the show.
//edit
after thinking about it I remeber having an identical problem, posting about it on the forums and finding a fix. Can't seem to find the thread now though.
SAS_Vet_Noah
dont know about browsers, but my personal server runs on Bsd
Lt_Col WIZ, VC, MiD (Ret)
Sir I consider that insulting.
Thunderbird has long been my favoried e-mail client for the additional security over outlook. I once purposed a switch to SeaMonkey so as to intregrate WWW and E-M on both NT and BSD, yet the sudtle changes of format between the mboxes was to much to beat Opera/elinks for browsing.
I'd be happy to change my e-mail client if you woundn't mind porting me overe a good version of a terminal emulator to replace cmd.exe. Do you think you could James? Then maybe I'd just swap over to Mutt for my portable mail clientel.
PS: Thank you Noah but I respect James to much as both a friend and officer to fight him in a duel of software.
my comments were merely in jest, I assumed you would find the comment derogatory so I decided to add a more comical tone to the thread. I will however try to track down what was causing the problem when I was using FF&TB and post the results.
SAS_Vet_Noah
I know, it brought a laugh to my face:)
Thank you, hope you find it. For right now I'll just have to maintain my own lists =/
Hehe, yes my comment was a gentle poke at Spidey, I know how protective non-Windows people get and I find it highly ammusing
Hehehe.
Isn't it amusing though that the [SAS] games are all that keep me from reformating my C Drive
Ahh, Windows XP is much better than BDS... BSD?
Windows XP is argubly the most stable Microsoft system yet. I've only had a few hundred blue screens of death. The way to implement changes to your network changes are to reboot according to one of my ISP's tech people.
FreeBSD has only crashed do to problems with my hardware, it can run allot more programs faster and without "leeking" the desktop through the window. Changes to the network settings can be done on the fly - seconds instead of minutes.
Have I mentioned Windows security updates happen when MS gets allot of calls or find something in the light of "Oh crap we gotta fix this before they sue". Vs BSD where the code is routinly checked for bugs/holes. OpenBSD a step sister of FreeBSD is the worlds most secure OS, one security hole found in the default install in over 8 years!
Windows XP costs $100-200, FreeBSD costs $0 if you have a CD-R / CD-Burner and internet connection. Or the price of shipping a CD set to you.
OK -> Enough said. Any more of this and a mod will have to split the topic ^_^
Windows does not require you to restart to change your network settings. Blue Screen of Death only occurs on XP in either a hardware or a driver error, Microsoft usually made neither, so it is beyond their control.
If it was that simple, don't you think Microsoft would do it with Windows?
If you are going to write a virus or security exploit, would you write it for Windows where it can have hundreds of millions of systems to choose from, or would you write it for OpenBSD with very few? Add to that the fact that the kinds of people who write viruses etc are usually the kinds that like Linux/Unix etc. For both reasons, very few people are looking for security holes of that kind in Linux/Unix, so it is not surprising that fewer have been found.
The short answer is we don't know which is really more secure, but you can bet your life that Windows XP has been better tested (by MS, by users, and by hackers) and better patched (regular updates) than any other version of Linux, Unix or Windows has ever been.
I now humbly and respectfully request this topic be slit into the Chit Chat forum.
I stated merly what I was told my ISP Tech Support, I cannot judge their accuracy.
_____
You know why MS won't do that? It would lead to to much freedom. I can sit around on my keester reading the entire source code of FreeBSD if I wanted to, heck I'd probably compile the entire OS forum the source code if I needed to upgrade major versions. -> If you could do that for Windows it'd be much harder to stop people from stealing their commercial product.
With this knolledge I bet some aspiring company would base a project on Windows code, improve it and break Microsofts budget highing lawyers to sue over interectual property rights.
Look at Apple Vs MS for some interesting idea of fear of others.
_______
I did not say OpenBSD was imune to viruses, I said it's default install had only found a single security hole in a default installation in many years. OpenBSDs openness has lead to it being one of the most under the microscope OSes ever, and it seems to work because no bodies found as many security holes in it as you will find in a off the shelf copy of Windows XP Professional.
They have even bullied companies over drivers, if they can't audit the source code it dosn't make it into OpenBSD -> That is way more srict then Free or Net BSD.
____
Sir, that is a sterio type. Respectfully the only way you can prove that is the fact that via history UNIX has been apart of the internet for a long long time.
Why do you think BSD is nearly virus proof? Any one who'd want to infect it would be targing an ISP's server -> or a Linux zealot out to port a Linux virus to it.
Microsoft Windows has no right to be an monoply, what next will we all by law of the UN have to where pink shirts on Sundays?
When joe blow window user is forced to secure their system which is usually handed to them without an optimal layer of Security or Administration is a disgracful abuse of it's popularity.
I grant that Windows has been most widly deployed to the desktop. However should you take into account that people have been improving Unix like systems since the late 1970s. Between countless people at berkley, AT&T, MS, various projects, GNU, Linux, F/N/O/D/ BSD e.t.c. that code has evolved from UNIX in BSD's case unlike Linux.
So in my humble opinion sir, BSD has been under the microscope in one form or another longer then Microsoft has been on the stock market.
Note: That the BSDs no longer contain any code from the origenal UNIX, it was rewritten in their own code based on the origenal. This was for legal reasons which I cannot confirm, but my no longer stand. (Meaning it may be possible to import stright 1970s UNIX code into BSD if needed.)