From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b30240b5a381bbf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-24 13:00:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Excessive quoting and Outlook (was: Ada 95 for an ARM-based bare board?) Date: 24 Aug 2002 13:00:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0208241200.274bde80@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1030219210 22895 127.0.0.1 (24 Aug 2002 20:00:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Aug 2002 20:00:10 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28371 Date: 2002-08-24T20:00:10+00:00 List-Id: "Robert C. Leif" wrote in message news:... > From: Bob Leif > To: Robert Dewar et al. > I quoted a very small part of the article. As a > scientist, I have been > programmed to always show my evidence. First, to see what you posted, just go look back at the article, I am certainly not about to repost it again. Second, as a scientist if you tried to publish a paper which consisted of one half or less of your own material and one half or more of a gigantic quotation from a published paper, then your submission would be rejected not the least of the reasons would be that this is almost certainly not fair use :-) Bob, when you participate in use net, all messages are threaded. Well actually I should not really say that, since you seem to manage to break the threading pretty often. But even when you are posting, there is almost always a reference line of the form: "Robert C. Leif" wrote in message news:... that you can see. This is all that is necessary most of the time, and is like a reference in a scientific paper. As for Outlook (one of the worst programs ever written IMO, and a program that is single handedly responsible for billions of dollars of damage by viruses because of its complete lack of concern for security), it most certainly does have defaults that are quite inappropriate. I suggest you very carefully check the defaults you are using and make sure they are appropriate. Now to be fair, Microsoft has *finally* recognized that security is worth worrying about (you may remember the highly publicized period earlier this year when development at MS was stopped so everyone could worry about security). So perhaps things may improve in the future