From: "Rod Gasson" 

"John Tserkezis"  wrote in message
news:mailman.10.1080340943.2830.fidoavtech{at}videocam.net.au...
> Rod Gasson wrote:
>
> > Me.. pedantic?  Nah, never ;-)
>
>   Myself neither. :-)

Didn't think so. :-)

> > I still don't know what mechanism could actually be used to *run* a
cookie
> > file though,
>
>   You can't.  It contains several parameters:
>
> Cookie name: (manditory) the name of the cookie.
> Content:     (manditory) usually a unique identifier, serial number of
sorts.
> Exipres:     time/date when the cookie is no longer valid
> Path:        the network path the cookie is valid for.
> Domain:      the domain the cookie originated from.
>
>   None of which are code, or executable, in any way.

Do you think bob is convinced yet?

Incidently, where IS Bob.  I haven't seen anything from him for several days
now?

>   Note however, that many sites *need* cookies to keep track of where you
are,

Yeah, that's 'cos the WWW is a 'stateless' connection. ie, the web servers
generally have no idea if the next request it recieves is related to a
pre-existing connection.

> and where you've been, otherwise they won't work.  Those who do, check to
see
> if you have cookies enabled first, and warn you if you don't.

Cookies are (in my opinion) a somewhat obsoleted method these days. Many
servers now use "session ID's" in their place. It acheives pretty much the
same purpose, but they aren't quite as persistant as cookies.  The main
benefit though is that sessionID's can't be disabled like cookies can (even
though I've never seen a real need to disable cookies anyway).

>   I've got one better.  Remember the "Good times" virus? 
The virus where
its
> sole mechanisim for duplication was the end user themselves? (I'm calling
it a
> virus because it did indeed propigate and duplicate).

Yeah, that is an oldie.

>   About two years after it became popular again (it comes back in waves,
much
> like the yo-yo)

Don't they all?  :-(

> when I was working at Solution 6 in Chatswood, we were issued
> with a company-wide email from our "network administrator" warning us
about it.
>
>   I'm using the term "network administator" loosely you understand?

Uhuh.

>   Now, I'm totally suprised about this, because this is the same guy who
on his
> first day in the server room, typed "DIR" at one of the Novell Netware
consoles
> and was suprised that it didn't work.

I'd forgive him for that 'cos dir is a valid command on both our windoze and
linux boxen, so I'd be inclined to try it on a Novell Netware console too.

>   Though this was only forwared by this moron, what I thought suprised me
was
> the fact that the original message was forwarded to him by the "network
> administrators" at the head office in St Leonards.
>
>   I thought those guys were better... Apparently not...

One that really gets to me is a freind that works for a goverment dept often
uses her account to sent out virus warnings (both real and fake) without
checking the facts first. The mere fact that these 'warnings' originate from
a .gov.au address means that many recipients will assume that since it comes
from a government department it must be factual. It seems so hard to get her
to understand that if she really MUST forward on these warnings without
checking the facts first she should do it using her own private email
account, rather than an official goc.au one.

>   Even so, I replied with a company-wide (chatswood and st leonards) email
> (several hundreds of people) that debunked the original, detailing all the
> errors, and stating it was in fact, a two-year-old wide-spread hoax, and
our
> "network geeks" fell for it.
>
>   I thought I was going to be *really* unpopular after that (I didn't
care, as
> I was on my way out anyway).  What happend however, gave me a valuable
insight
> as to how that company worked.
>
>   Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  And it was never talked about either.  I was
hoping to
> ruffle a few feathers, but alas, no.

LOL..  You probably did ruffle a few feathers, but the fact that everything
you said was probably 100% on the mark meant that anyone that did give you a
hard time about it would merely be further showing their own ignorance.

> >>  Whoops, that's it, I've just made Bob even more paranoid.
>
> > Is that possible?  ;-)
>   It is now that he knows about the Good times virus. :-)

LOL.

Cheers
Rod


--- ifmail v.2.15