Text 12655, 71 rader
Skriven 2010-11-28 06:58:59 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
  Kommentar till text 12416 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Mailboxes
=================
 RB> Peter, _please_ do both of us a favor and look back to the original
 RB> message from Bob Ackley where he describes what he experiences at
 RB> his local library. He wrote nothing else but that the URLs in
 RB> emails he received could not be accessed when clicked on in the
 RB> message, nor even when they were cut-and-pasted into the browser.
 RB> That was the message.

 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?

for one thing, they are, specifically, URLs that appear within an EMAIL
message...

for another, they are NOT KNOWN or "specific" as you are stating... they are
simply URLs in email messages...

 RB> At the same time, I gained the impression that other URLs entered
 RB> into the browser could be accessed normally. Granted, that is an
 RB> assumption, but in a library computer set up for use by patrons, a
 RB> reasonable one. 

 RB> So my question/position has always been, and remains - assuming
 RB> Bob's description is 100% accurate and he didn't simply have
 RB> operating problems with the computer or browser/mail client - HOW
 RB> it would be possible to block access to specific, previously
 RB> unknown URLs?

as i wrote before, one can deny certain things in certain places... URLs in
emails, copy'n'paste a URL from email to browser, and similar... these might be
done with a group policy... there are other methods, too, but they are not as
specific as the blocking of the copy function as was described originally which
i specifically also attributed to a policy setting that simply blocks all URLs
in any emails from being copied to the clipboard... i've never stated that
these were the only methods available, either...

 RB> Now everyone up to now has simply turned that around and either
 RB> assumed the URLs were known in advance 

i never did that...

 RB> and "naturally" could be blocked, or that _somehow_ the domains 
 RB> were known in advance 

i also never did that...
 
 RB> and similarly could "naturally" be blocked - or has simply ignored 
 RB> the fact that specific URLs were blocked. 

i didn't do that, either...

 RB> To me, the situation is easy to understand, but I have no
 RB> explanation for what Bob described. I've asked for and wanted a
 RB> reasonable explanation, but have gotten nothing but blabla, twisted
 RB> interpretations and insults from the self-styled experts.

not from me you haven't... i gave you at least one possible explanation, group
policies, that would explain it... further to that is up to you... have you
gone and done any research to learn what a network administrator has access to
and can control on individual workstations??

 RB> "It's easy", they claim, but when I start to ask "how", they clam
 RB> up or change the subject or twist things back to claim the
 RB> URLs/domains are known in advance, which is NOT! the case.

i did not "clam up"...
i did not change the subject...
i did not twist things to say the URLs are known...

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)