Text 12517, 129 rader
Skriven 2010-11-23 22:31:56 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
  Kommentar till text 12473 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Mailboxes
=================
Hi Robert,

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

 RB> So what else is new? But what does that have to do with 
 RB> what Bob Ackley described? 

I cannot find anything extra in Bob's Messae that jelps explain this situation,
which is why my conversation is with you. 

At the risk of RE-offending everyone, let me repeat -

A URL consists of 2 main parts -
        A FUNCTION.
        A TARGET for that function.
To completely stop a URL from working on a Machine, I would block the FUNCTION,
and forget the Target, as the FUNCTION would catch all use of that URL. 

To stop a URL, WITHIN ONE particular application, then (assuming one uses a
Firewall thats capable of doing this), I would block THAT FUNCTION within JUST
THAT APPLICATION. This is much more difficult, but is certainly possible, and
about all I can hint at here, is that this level of control would _PROBABLY_
require an EXTERNAL Firewall, and not one located on the machine in Question.

Exactly HOW one does this would vary greatly from system to system, Firewall to
Firewall and setup to setup.

The key point here is that it is possible to isolate the use of a URL to a
specific application, so a URL in an Email, is treated different to a URL in a
Browser. Ask yourself this question, how does YOUR machine know how to handle a
URL in a Browser, compared to a URL in an Email reader?

If you do not understand this simple concept, then I see no point in discussing
this further. 

 RB> And your theoretical 
 RB> comments on this don't really shed any more light on 
 RB> the subject than what the "experts" have written up to 
 RB> now: "It's easy!" - "How?" - "Well, you can block 
 RB> _known_ URLs...". Back to square one.

And I go back to what I wrote last time, that passing on this info could
provide clues to a potential vulnerabilty of that particular Firewall, hence
why people are reluctant to discuss such details in Public. If you really want
to know, then try asking the question in Netmail, not Echomail...


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.

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

I have re-read Bob's posting on the subject, but it did not provide any new
info. Please see my comment above about using an EXTERNAL Firewall, that may
help...

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...

 RB> Read what Bob Ackley writes. 

Unfortunately a re-read still does not clearly answer the question...;-(


 RB> All he does is confirm my understanding of 
 RB> the situation. And re-read what I've attempted to get 
 RB> through for over a week. I did _not_ write the above. I 
 RB> did _not_ "interpret" what he originally wrote. 

Then why do you continue to attempt to interpret what others write?

 RB> I only 
 RB> asked - uselessly to date - for an explanation that 
 RB> nobody seems to have, 

Seems is a lonely word, but means little when one does not consider the other
options.

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

Then please really do try and understand what others (and myself) are saying,
and why they (we) are saying it. 

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.

 RB> I have no "theory", 

If you have no theory then you must have evidence. Please provide that...

 RB> I have only what Bob Ackley has 
 RB> written, meanwhile _twice_. Now you either believe him 

Only as long as I can read AND understand what he has written. The catch seems
to be a variation between what he has written and different peoples
understanding of that info.

 RB> HOW something like this - blocking UNKNOWN URLs - is 
 RB> possible. 

That in itself is certainly possible, using just about any Firewall and the
appropriate settings.


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...

 RB> Meaning that the URL must be known to be blocked.

Again, you make a HUGE (incorrect) assumption. You just made the same error
that you blame everyone else for. This goes back to exactly what I wrote in my
previous message.

I think my previous lines in this message may have covered this anyway...

Cheers................pk.

--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: === Maxie BBS.  Ak, NZ +64 9 444-0989 === (3:772/1)