Thieving posties
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 24 Jun 2010 12:22 TOG(a)Toil <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 24 June, 15:24, real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid > (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > What I was asking about, you see, was about a way of doing this which > > > > had been demonstrated safe-enough. > > > > > No, you weren't. You didn't ask if anyone had actually *demonstrated* > > > such a system. You asked for suggestions. You used the present tense, > > > not the past. > > > > > But carry on moving the goalposts if you want. > > > > Actually, the reality of things is clearly visible in this thread, and > > it's interesting to see that you accuse me of moving the goalposts when > > that's your game. > > > > Let's see what *really* happened, shall we children? Yes, let's! > > In Message-ID: > > <1jkisui.dhbqrp1rnjmi0N%real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Something like <http://isendr.com/> ? > > > > Is there any way to tell if a site like that is safe, at all? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Then there was this in > > Message-ID: > > <1jkjqle.1wh806b14kx393N%real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > Is there any way to tell if a site like that is safe, at all? > > > > > Use it until it's proved otherwise. > > > > > Simples. > > > > For those who like gambling with that kind of thing. > > > > For those who do not? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > None of that meets your claims for what actually happened - shame that > > reality exists, isn't it? Your personal opinions are not the definitive > > statement of history, you know. > > Oh dear. Go back and read it again, and you'll see I'm correct. Oh dear - a shame that you're playing your usual game of totally ignoring the substance of the points I've raised, and just saying that you're right and I'm wrong regardless of the evidence. > Absolutely no request for a previously demonstrated-safe means. [snip] But the only way to tell if a site is safe - which is what I asked for - is if it has been demonstrated safe. My requests contained the implicit assumption that the site has been /demonstrated/ safe. As everyone can see, your allegation is nonsense. So do please stop playing silly buggers to wind me up, eh? This is a technical newsgroup, and you seem to post here mostly for the pleasure of bickering on a personal level. That's not what this newsgroup's for. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: The Older Gentleman on 24 Jun 2010 14:52 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > But the only way to tell if a site is safe - which is what I asked for - > is if it has been demonstrated safe. No, you didn't. > > My requests contained the implicit assumption that the site has been > /demonstrated/ safe. No, they didn't. Wrongo! -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Peter Ceresole on 24 Jun 2010 15:32 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > Something like <http://isendr.com/> ? > > Is there any way to tell if a site like that is safe, at all? What's the meaning of 'safe' in such a case? That it will get there? Because there seem to be several people who say that it will, and that seems fine to me. So what's the meaning of 'safe' here? This is a genuine question; if it means 'secure' then I don't see the point of it. What I was sending were several hundred photos of a group trip to Chicago by the Decorative Arts Society, and it really wouldn't matter who saw them. People make a big deal out pf data security, and often cite medical records in this connection. But I wouldn't care one jot if others accessed my medical records; why should I? In a barbaric place like the United States, where medical insurance can be compromised by revealing preexisting conditions, it might be catastrophic. But Britain (and Europe in general) is a civilised place, and the question doesn't arise. And even in America, Obama is trying to put things right. So I repeat; how secure does it need to be? Of course the most secure method of all is sneakernet- personal physical delivery. My problem arose because I tried to do it by post, and the USB drive was stolen. But it had no real consequences. -- Peter
From: Woody on 24 Jun 2010 16:26 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >>> Something like <http://isendr.com/> ? >> >> Is there any way to tell if a site like that is safe, at all? > > What's the meaning of 'safe' in such a case? > > That it will get there? Because there seem to be several people who > say > that it will, and that seems fine to me. > > So what's the meaning of 'safe' here? > > This is a genuine question; if it means 'secure' then I don't see the > point of it. What I was sending were several hundred photos of a group > trip to Chicago by the Decorative Arts Society, and it really wouldn't > matter who saw them. Indeed, what I meant when I said that I used dropbox but not for secure things. In this context it means my files, not work files. If I wanted to transit my files and I had some secure stuff, I would encrypt the files themselves. -- Woody
From: Mark on 24 Jun 2010 16:56
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:29:41 +0100, Graham J wrote (in article <4c22609c$0$28013$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk>): > > "D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in > message > news:1jkk1xl.x3no6085nl3qN%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk... >> "Graham J" <graham(a)invalid> wrote: >> >>> "D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in >>> message >>> news:1jkjycm.z8b7jb11ke8o4N%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk... >>>> Sara <saramerriman(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I've been using a free account to send large TIFFs to a very >>>>>> non-techie >>>>>> person. Works a dream. >>>>> >>>>> Another vote from here - I use it to keep folders in synch between >>>>> home >>>>> and work, and I did once use it to pass some printer software on to >>>>> someone, it worked as well as anything else I've ever tried. >>>> >>>> I use it too, and it works beautifully. >>>> >>>> There are two things I don't like about it. >>>> >>>> One is that you need to put the items you want available on Dropbox to >>>> be in your Dropbox folder. This means moving them out of their usual >>>> place, where you'd like them to be. >>>> >>> Can you not copy them to the Dropbox folder? >> >> Yes of course, but that won't really help if they are files that you >> work on every day from more than one location. > > In which case the process of synchronism between the local machine and the > "cloud" storage needs very careful testing. If you can't trust the "cloud" > then you probably shouldn't use it ... > > Dropbox update: <http://bit.ly/bJl2jB> Mark |