From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_1245_01C6D581.CD115340
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Signing has nothing to do with this as the issue you describe applies =
to unsigned software.  You just appear to be whining again that you =
believe you are smarter than most and don't want the general public to =
have the choices you do because you don't trust them.

Rich

  "Geo"  wrote in message
news:450536da$3{at}w3.nls.net...
  No that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying running executable code =
downloaded via the browser from random internet sites should be =
considered untrusted code by default and treated as such. I'm saying =
popping up a dialog box that says essentially "this is dangerous, are
= you sure" is not sufficient since most users have no idea what =
executable code is let alone who is trying to run it on their machines = or
what it might do.

  Geo.
    "Rich"  wrote in message news:4504dae6{at}w3.nls.net...
       Your position means that users should not be able to install =
software at all without proving that they aren't an idiot according to =
some rediculous criteria you imagine separates you from the idiots.  =
Signing allows a trust decision and is not a security issue.  The same =
scenarios exist without signing where the user has to make the same =
decision but lacks the ability to include trust as a factor.

    Rich
------=_NextPart_000_1245_01C6D581.CD115340
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Signing
has nothing to do =
with this as=20
the issue you describe applies to unsigned software.  You just =
appear to be=20
whining again that you believe you are smarter than most and don't want = the=20
general public to have the choices you do because you don't trust=20
them.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:450536da$3{at}w3.nls.net...
  No that's not what I'm saying, I'm =
saying running=20
  executable code downloaded via the browser from random internet sites =
should=20
  be considered untrusted code by default and treated as such. I'm =
saying=20
  popping up a dialog box that says essentially "this is dangerous, are =
you=20
  sure" is not sufficient since most users have no idea what executable =
code is=20
  let alone who is trying to run it on their machines or what it might=20
  do.
   
  Geo.
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4504dae6{at}w3.nls.net...
       Your
position means =
that users=20
    should not be able to install software at all without proving that =
they=20
    aren't an idiot according to some rediculous criteria you imagine =
separates=20
    you from the idiots.  Signing allows a trust decision and is =
not a=20
    security issue.  The same scenarios exist without signing where =
the=20
    user has to make the same decision but lacks the ability to include =
trust as=20
    a factor.
     
    Rich

------=_NextPart_000_1245_01C6D581.CD115340--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5