Vista - Microsoft limits Vista Firewall - for their own good ?

Yes I saw the Wikipedia netiquette article. I'm not the only one who doesn't
quote here. I find the replies that don't cross post quicker to get through.
But then again, maybe that's just because the indentations in me newsreader
make it so obvious who is replying to what, the quotes are just causing me
to scroll unnecessarily.



I do understand what it's good to have a firewall PC that blocks unsolicited
traffic. And I do understand why in larger networks you need firewalls to
control traffic between subnets. And I think it's great that the new Win
firewall is totally configurable.



The only thing I can't get my head around is the notion that shipping the
firewall with the Outbound connections set to Allow by default is somehow
"limiting" or "bad".



"Paul Johnson" <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote in message
news:tbcvi3-876.ln1@ursine.ca...
> Puppy Breath wrote:
>
>> "Paul Johnson" <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote in message
>> news:35sti3-3ec.ln1@ursine.ca...
>>> Please quote inline, top posting is antisocial.
>>> http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
>>
>> Guess I'm just an antisocial kinda guy. Hate scrolling through something
>> I
>> just read two seconds ago.
>
> If you're quoting enough you have to scroll before you see new text,
> you're
> including too much. Your answer indicates you didn't read that website.
> The idea of quoting is to give people as much conversational context as
> possible for what you're saying. If you're having a hard time spotting
> new
> material, try changing the color of quoted material to green: Any real
> news
> reader can do this.
>
>> In retrospect, I think that whole article is bogus. I doubt enterprises
>> made that request and if they did, I doubt it would matter.
>
> I can. Block users from file sharing or connecting to any type of service
> the enterprise doesn't consider work-related.
>
>> But I agree
>> that giving people the option to use a firewall as a sort of
>> after-the-infection-malware-detection tool is probably a good idea.
>
> That's not what any firewall is good for. If Microsoft is trying to
> implement packet filtering for this reason, they're probably better
> rewriting all that 20+ year old code they keep case-and-pasting into the
> next version instead of keeping it and it's bugs around.
>
>> At least from a marketing standpoint is not a practical one.
>
> From a marketing standpoint, a lot of the Right Stuff is utterly
> impossible
> to market since
>
> --
> Paul Johnson
> Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
> Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber

Let me rephrase that last post,



>.Your answer indicates you didn't read that website..



I did read the Wikipedia netiquette article. I just don't know that it
applies here. This isn't a Usenet newsgroup. I'm not the only person here
who doesn't quote. I have no problem following the thread when people don't
quote. The quoting seems superfluous here unless you're replying to
something a few steps back in the thread. It's easy enough to see who is
replying to what in my newsreader without the quoting.



>..various firewall comments.



I totally understand why it's good to have a PC firewall that blocks
unsolicited traffic. And I totally understand why enterprises need firewalls
to control traffic between subnets and at the perimeter. And I think it's
great that the new Windows firewall gives you granular control over traffic
based on port, group, addresses, and so forth. The only thing I can't get my
head around is this notion that having the Outbound connections set to Allow
by default is somehow "limiting" or "bad".





"Paul Johnson" <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote in message
news:tbcvi3-876.ln1@ursine.ca...

> Puppy Breath wrote:
>
>> "Paul Johnson" <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote in message
>> news:35sti3-3ec.ln1@ursine.ca...
>>> Please quote inline, top posting is antisocial.
>>> http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
>>
>> Guess I'm just an antisocial kinda guy. Hate scrolling through something
>> I
>> just read two seconds ago.
>
> If you're quoting enough you have to scroll before you see new text,
> you're
> including too much. Your answer indicates you didn't read that website.
> The idea of quoting is to give people as much conversational context as
> possible for what you're saying. If you're having a hard time spotting
> new
> material, try changing the color of quoted material to green: Any real
> news
> reader can do this.
>
>> In retrospect, I think that whole article is bogus. I doubt enterprises
>> made that request and if they did, I doubt it would matter.
>
> I can. Block users from file sharing or connecting to any type of service
> the enterprise doesn't consider work-related.
>
>> But I agree
>> that giving people the option to use a firewall as a sort of
>> after-the-infection-malware-detection tool is probably a good idea.
>
> That's not what any firewall is good for. If Microsoft is trying to
> implement packet filtering for this reason, they're probably better
> rewriting all that 20+ year old code they keep case-and-pasting into the
> next version instead of keeping it and it's bugs around.
>
>> At least from a marketing standpoint is not a practical one.
>
> From a marketing standpoint, a lot of the Right Stuff is utterly
> impossible
> to market since
>
> --
> Paul Johnson
> Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
> Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber

<Quote>
Trimming the quoted material down to only what you need for context and flow
of conversation is not only a proven way to save people's mail quotas and
dialup download times, it also makes it perfectly clear what you're
responding to and in what context. If someone opens your message and finds
the first screen full of message to be nothing but previously quoted
material, your message will just get skipped over and your audience will
just move on.
<\Quote>

These guidelines were true back in 1995 when they were designed for Windows
95 and 14.4kb/sec modems. Most of it just isn't true anymore, and top
posting simply works better. In line replies do have their place when
needed, but bottom posting just plain sucks. Bottom posting is going to die
of with the older generation of users; it's already happening.

Finally, if too much quoting is going to push you over your
news/mail/download quota, I'm not sure how to help you beyond saying, "get a
new isp, goofball."

-Mike


"Paul Johnson" <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote in message
news:35sti3-3ec.ln1@ursine.ca...
> Please quote inline, top posting is antisocial.
> http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
>
> Puppy Breath wrote:
>
>> You guys may be right. However, even if they did close all ports, would
>> users know if/when it's OK to let something go through? Also, there's
>> over
>> 32,000 ports to worry about (65,635 if you look at it terms of TCP and
>> UP). I don't see how you could make it "user friendly".
>
> 65,535 ports. 131,070 if you consider TCP and UDP ports to be unique.
>
>> Besides, the threats come from outside your own network, not inside. At
>> least, they shouldn't be coming from the inside if the rest of your
>> security is in place. And what's to keep a piece of malware from sending
>> out through port 80, which is always open on everyone's machine?
>
> Not always. Many networks do things like transparent proxying through
> Squid
> (http://www.squid-cache.net/) or other caching web proxy to reduce
> bandwidth usage and do content filtering or banner/pop-up ad-zapping
> (http://adzapper.sf.net/ is good and free for this). This is generally a
> good thing, as it reduces web server load as well. I find it odd that
> more
> ISPs don't do server-side ad-zapping for their customers, though.
>
>> I don't know, I think closing all outgoing ports by default would be a
>> real nightmare for end users.
>
> Anybody else remember the Trumpet Winsock nightmare and the hoops you had
> to
> jump through to get that to work? Even the various BSDs have open output
> by default, and those operating systems have bragging rights for going
> years without any security holes in the default install.
>
>> Especially since the threats shouldn't be
>> coming from inside in the first place. But again, what difference does it
>> make? It only takes a mouse click to change them from Open to Closed.
>
> At least they're finally adding the functionality for those who know they
> need it.
>
> --
> Paul Johnson
> Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
> Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber

It certainly has changed how I read usenet posts. Now, when I come in
late on a thread between top posters that has grown from 20 - 30 lines
of text and quoted material to 400 - 500 lines of previous material, I
don't need to read all the posts, I just open the most recent post
because it contains the entire muti-day thread with all it's replies.

Top posting also saves time because I often get to see the answer
before I see the question.

I think your next point is wrong, though.


On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:34:57 -0700, "Mike" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote:

><Quote>
>Trimming the quoted material down to only what you need for context and flow
>of conversation is not only a proven way to save people's mail quotas and
>dialup download times, it also makes it perfectly clear what you're
>responding to and in what context. If someone opens your message and finds
>the first screen full of message to be nothing but previously quoted
>material, your message will just get skipped over and your audience will
>just move on.
><\Quote>
>
>These guidelines were true back in 1995 when they were designed for Windows
>95 and 14.4kb/sec modems. Most of it just isn't true anymore, and top
>posting simply works better. In line replies do have their place when
>needed, but bottom posting just plain sucks. Bottom posting is going to die
>of with the older generation of users; it's already happening.
>
>Finally, if too much quoting is going to push you over your
>news/mail/download quota, I'm not sure how to help you beyond saying, "get a
>new isp, goofball."
>
>-Mike
>
>
>"Paul Johnson" <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote in message
>news:35sti3-3ec.ln1@ursine.ca...
>> Please quote inline, top posting is antisocial.
>> http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
>>
>> Puppy Breath wrote:
>>
>>> You guys may be right. However, even if they did close all ports, would
>>> users know if/when it's OK to let something go through? Also, there's
>>> over
>>> 32,000 ports to worry about (65,635 if you look at it terms of TCP and
>>> UP). I don't see how you could make it "user friendly".
>>
>> 65,535 ports. 131,070 if you consider TCP and UDP ports to be unique.
>>
>>> Besides, the threats come from outside your own network, not inside. At
>>> least, they shouldn't be coming from the inside if the rest of your
>>> security is in place. And what's to keep a piece of malware from sending
>>> out through port 80, which is always open on everyone's machine?
>>
>> Not always. Many networks do things like transparent proxying through
>> Squid
>> (http://www.squid-cache.net/) or other caching web proxy to reduce
>> bandwidth usage and do content filtering or banner/pop-up ad-zapping
>> (http://adzapper.sf.net/ is good and free for this). This is generally a
>> good thing, as it reduces web server load as well. I find it odd that
>> more
>> ISPs don't do server-side ad-zapping for their customers, though.
>>
>>> I don't know, I think closing all outgoing ports by default would be a
>>> real nightmare for end users.
>>
>> Anybody else remember the Trumpet Winsock nightmare and the hoops you had
>> to
>> jump through to get that to work? Even the various BSDs have open output
>> by default, and those operating systems have bragging rights for going
>> years without any security holes in the default install.
>>
>>> Especially since the threats shouldn't be
>>> coming from inside in the first place. But again, what difference does it
>>> make? It only takes a mouse click to change them from Open to Closed.
>>
>> At least they're finally adding the functionality for those who know they
>> need it.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Johnson
>> Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
>> Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber
>

I be interested to here from anyone who is going over their quota because of
extra text. My free news account has 2Gigs a month, and I'd be surprised if
I use even 1/20th of it. Not to mention, even the text in the longest
threads, pales in comparison to the text in the average .html (webpage)
file. Plus, the web pages have pictures too.

-Mike

"Jed" <zyzygy@plenipotentiary.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:8jps521deite9k9j1vsof3mqrprpn84sh8@4ax.com...
> It certainly has changed how I read usenet posts. Now, when I come in
> late on a thread between top posters that has grown from 20 - 30 lines
> of text and quoted material to 400 - 500 lines of previous material, I
> don't need to read all the posts, I just open the most recent post
> because it contains the entire muti-day thread with all it's replies.
>
> Top posting also saves time because I often get to see the answer
> before I see the question.
>
> I think your next point is wrong, though.
>
>
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:34:57 -0700, "Mike" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
>><Quote>
>>Trimming the quoted material down to only what you need for context and
>>flow
>>of conversation is not only a proven way to save people's mail quotas and
>>dialup download times, it also makes it perfectly clear what you're
>>responding to and in what context. If someone opens your message and finds
>>the first screen full of message to be nothing but previously quoted
>>material, your message will just get skipped over and your audience will
>>just move on.
>><\Quote>
>>
>>These guidelines were true back in 1995 when they were designed for
>>Windows
>>95 and 14.4kb/sec modems. Most of it just isn't true anymore, and top
>>posting simply works better. In line replies do have their place when
>>needed, but bottom posting just plain sucks. Bottom posting is going to
>>die
>>of with the older generation of users; it's already happening.
>>
>>Finally, if too much quoting is going to push you over your
>>news/mail/download quota, I'm not sure how to help you beyond saying, "get
>>a
>>new isp, goofball."
>>
>>-Mike
>>
>>
>>"Paul Johnson" <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote in message
>>news:35sti3-3ec.ln1@ursine.ca...
>>> Please quote inline, top posting is antisocial.
>>> http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
>>>
>>> Puppy Breath wrote:
>>>
>>>> You guys may be right. However, even if they did close all ports, would
>>>> users know if/when it's OK to let something go through? Also, there's
>>>> over
>>>> 32,000 ports to worry about (65,635 if you look at it terms of TCP and
>>>> UP). I don't see how you could make it "user friendly".
>>>
>>> 65,535 ports. 131,070 if you consider TCP and UDP ports to be unique.
>>>
>>>> Besides, the threats come from outside your own network, not inside. At
>>>> least, they shouldn't be coming from the inside if the rest of your
>>>> security is in place. And what's to keep a piece of malware from
>>>> sending
>>>> out through port 80, which is always open on everyone's machine?
>>>
>>> Not always. Many networks do things like transparent proxying through
>>> Squid
>>> (http://www.squid-cache.net/) or other caching web proxy to reduce
>>> bandwidth usage and do content filtering or banner/pop-up ad-zapping
>>> (http://adzapper.sf.net/ is good and free for this). This is generally
>>> a
>>> good thing, as it reduces web server load as well. I find it odd that
>>> more
>>> ISPs don't do server-side ad-zapping for their customers, though.
>>>
>>>> I don't know, I think closing all outgoing ports by default would be a
>>>> real nightmare for end users.
>>>
>>> Anybody else remember the Trumpet Winsock nightmare and the hoops you
>>> had
>>> to
>>> jump through to get that to work? Even the various BSDs have open
>>> output
>>> by default, and those operating systems have bragging rights for going
>>> years without any security holes in the default install.
>>>
>>>> Especially since the threats shouldn't be
>>>> coming from inside in the first place. But again, what difference does
>>>> it
>>>> make? It only takes a mouse click to change them from Open to Closed.
>>>
>>> At least they're finally adding the functionality for those who know
>>> they
>>> need it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul Johnson
>>> Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
>>> Jabber: Because it's time to move forward
>>> http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber
>>
>

Mike wrote:

> <Quote>
> Trimming the quoted material down to only what you need for context and
> flow of conversation is not only a proven way to save people's mail quotas
> and dialup download times, it also makes it perfectly clear what you're
> responding to and in what context. If someone opens your message and finds
> the first screen full of message to be nothing but previously quoted
> material, your message will just get skipped over and your audience will
> just move on.
> <\Quote>
>
> These guidelines were true back in 1995 when they were designed for
> Windows 95 and 14.4kb/sec modems. Most of it just isn't true anymore, and
> top posting simply works better.

No, not really. It's still true for anybody who deals with a high volume of
electronic correspondence. If you're going through ~1100 messages a day,
with some NNTP and email not arriving synchronously (NNTP and email are not
gauranteed to deliver in order, and frequently don't), are you going to be
able to follow threads that are top posted without jumping through hoops?
No.

If you're reading the archives, are you going to want to read everything in
reverse order to catch up on a problem you're trying to solve without
having to ask the group the same tired, old questions? No.

Spam filters, kill files, flaky servers, cancellations, and bad links cause
messages to get dropped silently before being delivered to all
destinations. Do people that didn't get the opportunity to read every
article for whatever reason know what you're talking about without framing
things in context? No.

European, African and Asian users frequently pay by the kilobyte to read
more. Do they want to pay to download the entire previous article in
addition to top-posting's reduced visibility? No.

Please show some consideration and forethought for those that aren't in the
exact same situation that you are. Please understand that not all Internet
conventions are purely technical, particularly in correspondence. Assume
that your audience has not seen the message you are responding to.

> In line replies do have their place when needed, but bottom posting just
> plain sucks. Bottom posting is going to die of with the older generation
> of users; it's already happening.

Bottom posting does suck, however, it was never a common convention except
on very short messages. Your news reader puts the cursor at the top
assuming you're going to be editing as you're working your way down.

> Finally, if too much quoting is going to push you over your
> news/mail/download quota, I'm not sure how to help you beyond saying, "get
> a new isp, goofball."

Not always an option for all users, especially outside North America. Show
some consideration for your fellow users instead of just saying, "I'm too
lazy to learn how to use electronic correspondence."

--
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber

Many people still share your sentiments, but most are older users. I'm going
to take a wild guess here that you are over 35. I'm not saying your way is
wrong, I'm just saying it is falling out of popularity (which I'm sure you
already know by the number of top posts you see each day). I, like most
younger users, find having to scroll through a post to read it to be far
more aggravating and common than the issues, you are describing.

It's really a case of "I want it this way because . . . and they want it
that way because . . . and everyone thinks their reasons are more
important/right. I do think you'll find that top posting will continue gain
popularity as it has been doing for a few years now. It's not a case of, "I
don't want learn," it's more a case of, "I've heard and understand the
argument, but I disagree with it."

-Mike


"Paul Johnson" <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote in message
news:3882j3-q57.ln1@ursine.ca...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> <Quote>
>> Trimming the quoted material down to only what you need for context and
>> flow of conversation is not only a proven way to save people's mail
>> quotas
>> and dialup download times, it also makes it perfectly clear what you're
>> responding to and in what context. If someone opens your message and
>> finds
>> the first screen full of message to be nothing but previously quoted
>> material, your message will just get skipped over and your audience will
>> just move on.
>> <\Quote>
>>
>> These guidelines were true back in 1995 when they were designed for
>> Windows 95 and 14.4kb/sec modems. Most of it just isn't true anymore, and
>> top posting simply works better.
>
> No, not really. It's still true for anybody who deals with a high volume
> of
> electronic correspondence. If you're going through ~1100 messages a day,
> with some NNTP and email not arriving synchronously (NNTP and email are
> not
> gauranteed to deliver in order, and frequently don't), are you going to be
> able to follow threads that are top posted without jumping through hoops?
> No.
>
> If you're reading the archives, are you going to want to read everything
> in
> reverse order to catch up on a problem you're trying to solve without
> having to ask the group the same tired, old questions? No.
>
> Spam filters, kill files, flaky servers, cancellations, and bad links
> cause
> messages to get dropped silently before being delivered to all
> destinations. Do people that didn't get the opportunity to read every
> article for whatever reason know what you're talking about without framing
> things in context? No.
>
> European, African and Asian users frequently pay by the kilobyte to read
> more. Do they want to pay to download the entire previous article in
> addition to top-posting's reduced visibility? No.
>
> Please show some consideration and forethought for those that aren't in
> the
> exact same situation that you are. Please understand that not all
> Internet
> conventions are purely technical, particularly in correspondence. Assume
> that your audience has not seen the message you are responding to.
>
>> In line replies do have their place when needed, but bottom posting just
>> plain sucks. Bottom posting is going to die of with the older generation
>> of users; it's already happening.
>
> Bottom posting does suck, however, it was never a common convention except
> on very short messages. Your news reader puts the cursor at the top
> assuming you're going to be editing as you're working your way down.
>
>> Finally, if too much quoting is going to push you over your
>> news/mail/download quota, I'm not sure how to help you beyond saying,
>> "get
>> a new isp, goofball."
>
> Not always an option for all users, especially outside North America.
> Show
> some consideration for your fellow users instead of just saying, "I'm too
> lazy to learn how to use electronic correspondence."
>
> --
> Paul Johnson
> Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
> Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber

Mike wrote:

> Many people still share your sentiments, but most are older users. I'm
> going to take a wild guess here that you are over 35.

And you'd be wrong by over a decade. 24.

> I'm not saying your
> way is wrong, I'm just saying it is falling out of popularity (which I'm
> sure you already know by the number of top posts you see each day).

Only with people whose first newsreader was Outlook Express or whatever AOL
provided. Clueful users don't have this problem.

--
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber

"Clueful users don't have this problem"
That is clearly one of your big mistakes since top posting is not a problem.

An observation over several years.
Top posters rarely complain, it seems they can usually easily deal with it
however it comes.
If there are complaints, it usually comes from other posters who see some
imagined problem with top posting.
Even then it is a small minority who complain.
They also need to use phrases such as "Clueful users... " "top posting is
antisocial" to drive their point.
Apparently some feel top posters are clueless, antisocial etc and need to
attempt to intimidate since facts are elusive to those few complainers.

The ones who have the problem need to deal with their problem.
Attempting to foist their problem on others only reflects on their own
inability. .

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Paul Johnson" <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote in message
news:4qs2j3-cj8.ln1@ursine.ca...
> Only with people whose first newsreader was Outlook Express or whatever
> AOL
> provided. Clueful users don't have this problem.
>
> --
> Paul Johnson
> Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
> Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber

Another reason for not using Vista unless someone really has nothing better
to do.

I have the feeling that Visa could be the end of the company although I am
not against it in any ways.


"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:u8rNtkDcGHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> http://labnol.blogspot.com/2006/04/m...ewall-for.html
>
> --
> "What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people
> think things are."
> - Epictetus 55-135
>
>