On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:22:15AM -0600, ABrady wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:42:42 -0500 (EST)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quietly intimated:
>
> > "Not off hand. But I can guarantee a little research can turn it up."
I'm going to interject in a few places because I did the challenge on IE and
standards and your overall (from my point of view) MS-bashing.
The reason I made the request is because I felt you wouldn't be able to back
it up, especially the comment that it was intentionally broken to further
IE dominance and it was not a bug. A recent eWeek article (March 18) covered
an interoperability issue between IE and Apache. I'll quote "After eWeek Labs
alerted Microsoft to the discover, a Microsoft spokesman state that the company
has identified the issue and will work on a fix." I don't know if this is the
same issue that started this thread, but does show that Microsoft can
acknowledge interopability issues and that they're not always evil.
In a continuance of your MS rant, you claimed (I'm paraphrasing since I deleted
the earlier article) "want proof? see the Sun lawsuit". This lawsuit hasn't
even gone to trial yet. Anybody can sue, and a lot of people do, without
merit. The merit has *NOT* been proven just because Sun is crying foul.
> The specific question was, how could I be sure MS was deliberately
> making the browser less than functional rather than just messing it up
> by accident? My reply was the "history" part.
Which is a totally bogus response. History does not project the future. If
this were the case, we'd all be millionares on the stock market. We've all
done some stupid or wrong things in the past - it doesn't mean we're bad or
wrong people now.
> needed to back up claims at a moment's notice. But, I left open the
> possibility of doing so later, if a challenge came to the content, which
> it did not in this case.
Consider yourself challenged :-)
> > but could it be that after following the link to download the ISO that
> > it is then being redirected to an ftp site uses as does the normal
> > public ftp.redhat.com email for a password anonymous ftp access??? If
> > so I it is more than likely running into the same problem IE has with
> > ftp.redhat.com in that the ftp server is rejecting the anonymous
> > password that IE passes which is "IEUser" which is rejected by the ftp
> > server due to the fact it is not formated as an email address???
> > Netscape formats a "fake" email address off the bat to get around
> > this.
So how is this actually an IE issue? I see this as an ftp server issue.
wu-ftpd has specific ftpaccess commands to deal with this issue (man ftpaccess,
look for passwd-check).
> > If this is the case if RH was to do away with the email for password
> > or no access clause in the ftp servers config things should start
> > working. Besides does anyone actually put a real email address as
> > their password anyways :)
See above. I don't know which ftp server Red Hat is using, but they have
control over what they'll accept. It is not exclusively a client issue.
.../Ed
--
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
