Text 12473, 67 rader
Skriven 2010-11-22 07:34:54 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 12424 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
Ärende: Mailboxes
=================
Peter Knapper wrote to Robert Bashe on Monday November 22 2010 at 10:52:

RB>> He wrote nothing else but that the URLs in emails he received could
RB>> not be accessed when clicked on in the message,

PK> This is what I was trying to describe, a combination of Function and a
PK> Target, which is a URL.

So what else is new? But what does that have to do with what Bob Ackley
described? And your theoretical comments on this don't really shed any more
light on the subject than what the "experts" have written up to now: "It's
easy!" - "How?" - "Well, you can block _known_ URLs...". Back to square one.

RB>> nor even when they were cut-and-pasted into the browser. That was the
RB>> message.

PK> So did the Paste itself not work or did the PASTE work, but the URL
PK> simply did not work? There is a big difference as to WHY this may be
PK> the case.

I _did_ ask you to read what Bob Ackley wrote, and he even repeated it
yesterday.

RB>> Such URLs are not known in advance, not even by the recipient, and
RB>> they are very definitely _specific_ URLs - what else would they be?

PK> This is the part that seems to vary, in one place you say that ALL
PK> URLS' fail and in another you say that only one URL needs to fail...

Read what Bob Ackley writes. All he does is confirm my understanding of the
situation. And re-read what I've attempted to get through for over a week. I
did _not_ write the above. I did _not_ "interpret" what he originally wrote. I
only asked - uselessly to date - for an explanation that nobody seems to have,
nor do any of those who have replied to date even appear to understand the
situation despite Bob Ackley's explanations and my attempts to summarize his
experience.

PK> Also one needs to consider WHERE the blocking takes place.

Peter, please... I've really had enough of theory without facts and claims
without substance.

PK> Without more detail of what they are doing, we are only just trying to
PK> guess, so here I disagree, you appear to be basing your theory on what
PK> I consider is an UNReasonable assumption.

I have no "theory", I have only what Bob Ackley has written, meanwhile _twice_.
Now you either believe him or you put everything down to his lack of knowledge
about computers. I believe him to begin with and ask HOW something like this -
blocking UNKNOWN URLs - is possible. And get unending claims, theory and
insults from people who apparently don't bother to read what he wrote and
consider the facts before they start writing.

RB>> So why didn't you, and why don't you tell me what URL I was thinking
RB>> of that you blocked?

PK> Because I don't need to know, the Firewall does...

Meaning that the URL must be known to be blocked. Thank you for (finally) a
reasonably clear statement. Not that all this has explained to even a slight
extent what Bob Ackley writes he experienced on the computer at his local
library.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)