Re: RFC-822 gurus - Do spammers know when we de

[Scott Klement <pctech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Sure.  If I give you references to 3 "Email Gurus" will that convince you of
> anything?  If I give you references of 15 "Email Gurus" with that convice
> you of anything?  Is there one particular "Email Guru" that you will trust
> the opinion of above all others? What exactly will this accomplish?

I'm sorry... have I offended in you in some way?

I have been using text-only e-mail clients on a Unix machine for a long, 
long time. They don't execute Javascript.  They don't reply to return 
receipts. They're not capable of executing an attachment -- even if you 
click on it -- they only know how to save it to disk. They're not capable 
of following a link to a web site or even opening up a browser to do so.

Since they run on a Unix machine, they're not susceptable to 99% of the 
viruses out there, even if they did try to execute them, because these 
viruses are all targeted towards Windows.

You came along and said that Pegasus was THE SAFEST e-mail client out 
there.  I thought to myself, "nahhh, it can't be as safe as the way I do 
it, can it?"  So I asked.  Have you compared it to ELM? or Mutt?  (These 
are some of the aforementioned Unix text-only readers.)

You seemed to take offense and reply with sarcasm to everything I've 
posted since then.  Why is that?


> Take a look at one of the security sites like http://secunia.com/ and check
> the advisories Pegasus Email over the years.
[SNIP]
> The link for WinPMail is http://secunia.com/product/5565/ and it shows
> only one hit over the years, none unpatched.  You can compare this to
> the other email systems pretty easily.  For example, OE6 has 21 hits with
> 8 not fixed.

I don't even have to go to secunia.com.  I can go to www.pmail.com, and it 
says on the front page "Dec 2005 - Urgent: Secunia exploits".

The one Secunia exploit was a very crtiical one, it enabled an attacker 
FULL SYSTEM ACCESS to your machine from a remote location.  That's the 
worst kind of exploit.

Again, I'm not saying that Pegasus is insecure or that it's bad in any way 
-- my complaint, as I said in my first message to you, was with the 
wording "the safest".

There's no question that it's safer than Outlook Express.  Heck, laying 
down naked in the middle of a busy highway is safer than Outlook Express. 
I'd also guess that it's safer than Eudora, Thunderbird and Lotus Notes, 
but I don't have any data to back this up.  This is why I asked you for 
sources.

I don't use those clients, though.  So knowing that it's safer than those 
doesn't make it "the safest" in my mind.  I agree with you that it's a 
good tool and I said this in my first message to you.  I question whether 
it's really THE SAFEST, which in English means "Safer than all known 
e-mail clients", and that's nearly impossible to determine or prove.

> When it comes down to it you are probably going to use either what you
> have been using for years and are comfortable with or what your
> company says you have to use.  I'm not trying to convince you to switch
> to Pegasus.  I answered the original email in response to someone that
> was concerned about spammers getting their information.  Pegasus is a
> solution that allows you to be in control.

Guess what?  I don't disagree with you that it's a good, secure, tool.  I 
do disagree that it's "the safest", and I've made this clear from the 
start of this thread.

I think we've both made our points. Can we declare this thread dead, now?