It's not from me

  • Thread starter Wafflycathcsdir
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
> It's come to my attention this morning, that my email might have been
hacked
> into and used to send out pornographic emails.
>
> If you receive have received any email purporting to be from me that is of
that
> type, please rest assured it is not from *me*.
>
> I have been in contact with AOL and have to say, I am not impressed by
their
> lack of response to my concern on this. The only way my email could have
been
> hacked, if that is what has happened - according to AOL, is for my
password to
> have been hacked. As I do not give out my password to anyone, plus I run a firewall, I can only
> assume that AOL security is perhaps not what it might
be.

Moo.

I doubt that your account has been hacked - just think about what you do when you set up your email
program, like Outlook Express or whathaveyou. You can enter any address you like in the "From"
field. Spammers, being the delightful fellows that they are, often use this as one measure in a line
of many to ply their trade semi-anonymously.

I had a real fun 'un recently. Some bugger decided that sending out mail coming from [random numbers
& letters] @atari.co.uk would be fun. Cue *thousands* of failed delivery reports coming my way. Was
not amused.

However, the good thing is that as long as you tell your ISP what's going on, they're normally more
than understanding and so won't boot you off their service! (so far...)

Thomas.
 
"Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> However, the good thing is that as long as you tell your ISP what's going on, they're normally
> more than understanding and so won't boot you off their service! (so far...)

Unfortunately Helen's ISP is AOL who, amazingly, do not know whether the offensive material came
from her account or not.

--
Dave...
 
wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:

> >f you use Internet Explorer, there are (far too) frequent updates for it.
>
> Don't use IE :)
>
Sound advice :)

--
Carol Hague "One evil at at time. That's the best I can do." - Crichton, _Farscape_
 
James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:21:20 +0100, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Don't use IE :)
> >> >
> >> Sound advice :)
> >
> >Or to generalise -- don't use Microsnot.
> >
>
> FreeAgent, Eudora, Opera loaded but I do tend to use IE6 as the majority of web sites are
> "designed" for it.

If I find a commercial site I want to use has been designed for a particular browser, I usually
complain to whoever is responsible. They should be designed to be compliant with HTML standards.
That's why they're called *standards*, dammit!!

I also point out to them that, if you run a commercial website and make it difficult or impossible
for some of your potential customers to access it, you're effectively shooting yourself in the foot.
They probably don't listen, but it makes me feel a bit better...

--
Carol Hague (using Eudora, MacSoup & Safari) "I'm not obsessing - I just want everything to
be perfect."
- Piper, Charmed.
 
Carol Hague wrote:

> If I find a commercial site I want to use has been designed for a particular browser, I usually
> complain to whoever is responsible. They should be designed to be compliant with HTML standards.
> That's why they're called *standards*, dammit!!

old but apposite joke: "how many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a light bulb?" "none,
they declare darkness to be the new industry standard" ;-/

Pete (currently working on redoing his various personal and professional websites with CSS rather
than hardcoding for all the formatting).

--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
In news:[email protected], Peter Clinch <[email protected]> typed:
> Carol Hague wrote:
>
>> If I find a commercial site I want to use has been designed for a particular browser, I usually
>> complain to whoever is responsible. They should be designed to be compliant with HTML standards.
>> That's why they're called *standards*, dammit!!
>
> old but apposite joke: "how many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a light bulb?"
> "none, they declare darkness to be the new industry standard" ;-/
>
> Pete (currently working on redoing his various personal and professional websites with CSS rather
> than hardcoding for all the formatting).

HTML tidy (http://tidy.sf.net) can do that on a file by file basis. I don't know of anything that
can do it on a larger scale, although I'm thinking maybe I need to hack one together for myself.
 
"Carol Hague" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1fwftiw.1e4iyeq1sdbo4wN%[email protected]...
> James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:21:20 +0100, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Don't use IE :)
> > >> >
> > >> Sound advice :)
> > >
> > >Or to generalise -- don't use Microsnot.
> > >
> >
> > FreeAgent, Eudora, Opera loaded but I do tend to use IE6 as the majority of web sites are
> > "designed" for it.
>
> If I find a commercial site I want to use has been designed for a particular browser, I usually
> complain to whoever is responsible. They should be designed to be compliant with HTML standards.
> That's why they're called *standards*, dammit!!

Heh, but the question is: how many browsers support the standards? I have a few HTML 4 complient
pages (checked by W3 validator) that look like a dog in various versions of IE.

Mind you, had a BIG argument at my last workplace over my refusal to cater for Netscape 4 users.
Sorry, that browser's a dog, the likely user of it is going to be technically capable of using Lynx
and if nothing else they're not our target audience.

*SO* glad I got out of webdev :)

Thomas.

> I also point out to them that, if you run a commercial website and make it difficult or impossible
> for some of your potential customers to access it, you're effectively shooting yourself in the
> foot. They probably don't listen, but it makes me feel a bit better...
 
In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Pete (currently working on redoing his various personal and professional websites with CSS rather
>> than hardcoding for all the formatting).
>
> HTML tidy (http://tidy.sf.net) can do that on a file by file basis. I don't know of anything that
> can do it on a larger scale, although I'm thinking maybe I need to hack one together for myself.

Tidy can strip out a lot of the ****. But it can't (usefully) add CSS; it can only do an ad-hoc job
that essentially duplicates what you already had. Neither can it add structure to your markup, if
(for example) you've been misled by a defective authoring tool into using inappropriate visual
effects in place of headings.

My own company's AccessValet product can do a similar job of removing the ****, and can be scripted
to process all your files in batch (I'm sure that should also be possible with Yidy). Either tool
will give you something much cleaner to work with, but leave you to add the styling yourself.

If you want to fix entire sites on-the-fly, mod_accessibility does the job and as a bonus empowers
your users further.

--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)
 
"Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> wrote:

> "Carol Hague" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1fwftiw.1e4iyeq1sdbo4wN%[email protected]...

> > If I find a commercial site I want to use has been designed for a particular browser, I usually
> > complain to whoever is responsible. They should be designed to be compliant with HTML standards.
> > That's why they're called *standards*, dammit!!
>
> Heh, but the question is: how many browsers support the standards? I have a few HTML 4 complient
> pages (checked by W3 validator) that look like a dog in various versions of IE.

I used to use a Mac browser called iCab (Safari is better, so I use that now) which had a nice
feature - a little smiley face in the corner which was green for compliant pages, yellow for
slightly dodgy ones and red for the utterly ghastly stuff. Not sure I ever saw a green face page...

Your point is a good one though, the browsers ought to support the standards too...

--
Carol Hague "He really has a noble heart and the best of intentions. He just happens to be stark
raving mad."
- Jon DeCles, _The Particolored Unicorn_
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom Back