From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0806_01C75E49.DD433020
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Duh!  If the words had exactly the same meaning and connotations then =
we wouldn't likely have different words.  If you and geo would like to =
play word games instead of discussing the actual content go ahead.

Rich

  "Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in message =
news:45eb07a4{at}w3.nls.net...

  ?
  Not true.

  Critical CAN be needed as unneeded CAN be critical.
  Says my grandmother.

  ...

  ---
  M.



  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e9d602$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     Roget's Thesaurus disagrees.  See=20
  http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/critical%20needed.

  Rich

  "Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in message=20
  news:45e9a6fd{at}w3.nls.net...

  unneeded !=3D not critical.


  ---
  M.


  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e6f39e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     unneeded =3D=3D unnecessary =3D=3D optional =3D=3D not critical.

  Rich
  "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:45e6b7c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  Hmmm... "unneeded", "auxiliary", "not
critical", I don't see the term
  "unnecessary optional" in there at all Rich.

  Would you say the dns client service is unneeded, auxiliary, not =
critical? I
  certainly would unless you are on a large corporate LAN and you argued =
with
  me about it. See your idea of unneeded and mine are vastly different. =
To you
  unneeded is something that is not used at all, to me it's anything you =
can
  shut down without breaking the functionality you need.

  I would think the security guys at Symantec (the ones who made that
  recommendation) would think like me and judging from the size of their
  products lately, management and the programmers think like you.

  That would explain why they make such a recommendation and at the same =
time
  get exploited as a virus entry point..

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e66bb5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     Better understanding, I don't think so.  Different opinion, =
absolutely.
  There is nothing wrong with disabling unnecessary optional services.  =
What
  you do is flailing.

  Rich

    "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:45e64067$2{at}w3.nls.net...
    "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e4eb2b$1{at}w3.nls.net...

    >>   Now you are trying to read more into what symantec wrote.

    Or perhaps I just have a better understanding of that line of =
thought.

    Geo.=20


------=_NextPart_000_0806_01C75E49.DD433020
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








  
Duh!  If the =
words had=20
exactly the same meaning and connotations then we wouldn't likely have = different=20
words.  If you and geo would like to play word games instead of =
discussing=20
the actual content go ahead.
 
Rich
 

  "Hrvoje Mesing" <Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr&g=">mailto:Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr">Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message news:45eb07a4{at}w3.nls.net...?Not=20
  true.Critical CAN be needed as unneeded CAN be =
critical.Says my=20
 
grandmother....---M."Rich"
=
<{at}> wrote=20
  in message news:45e9d602$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
  =20
  Roget's Thesaurus disagrees.  See http://t" target="new">http://t=">http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/critical%20needed">http://t=
hesaurus.reference.com/browse/critical%20needed.Rich"=
Hrvoje=20
  Mesing" <Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr&g=">mailto:Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr">Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message news:45e9a6fd{at}w3.nls.net...=
unneeded=20
  !=3D not
critical.---M."Rich"
<{at}> =
wrote in=20
  message news:45e6f39e$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
  =20
  unneeded =3D=3D unnecessary =3D=3D optional =3D=3D not =
critical.Rich"Geo."=20
  <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote =
in message=20
  news:45e6b7c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
Hmmm...=20
  "unneeded", "auxiliary", "not critical", I
don't see the =
term"unnecessary=20
  optional" in there at all Rich.Would you say the
dns client =
service is=20
  unneeded, auxiliary, not critical? Icertainly would unless you are =
on a=20
  large corporate LAN and you argued withme about it. See your idea =
of=20
  unneeded and mine are vastly different. To youunneeded is =
something that=20
  is not used at all, to me it's anything you canshut down without =
breaking=20
  the functionality you need.I would think the security guys at =
Symantec=20
  (the ones who made thatrecommendation) would think like me and =
judging=20
  from the size of theirproducts lately, management and the =
programmers=20
  think like you.That would explain why they make such a =
recommendation=20
  and at the same timeget exploited as a virus entry=20
  point..Geo."Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message news:45e66bb5$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
  =20
  Better understanding, I don't think so.  Different opinion,=20
  absolutely.There is nothing wrong with disabling unnecessary =
optional=20
  services.  Whatyou do is
flailing.Rich  =
"Geo."=20
  <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote =
in message=20
  news:45e64067$2{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:45e4eb2b$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  >>   Now you are trying to read more into what =
symantec=20
  wrote.  Or perhaps I just have a better
understanding of =
that=20
  line of thought.  Geo. =


------=_NextPart_000_0806_01C75E49.DD433020--

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