From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chris Moore Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C file recoginzed as image file Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:34:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1168263288 19437 80.91.229.12 (8 Jan 2007 13:34:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:34:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, c.a.rendle@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 08 14:34:44 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H3ueA-0005NE-B1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:34:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H3ue9-0006aV-Cd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:34:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H3udl-0006ZW-Fy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:34:17 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H3udj-0006YT-QE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:34:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H3udj-0006YK-Kd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:34:15 -0500 Original-Received: from [66.249.92.168] (helo=ug-out-1314.google.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H3udi-0006Q8-TO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:34:15 -0500 Original-Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so6963051ugf for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 05:34:13 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:to:cc:references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-sa-exim-connect-ip:x-sa-exim-mail-from:x-spam-checker-version:x-spam-level:x-spam-status:subject:x-sa-exim-version:x-sa-exim-scanned:sender; b=hcdxvKVs0Xg09UCm2ESoqy7VspkhEUWrM5RN7xUNO2NtGnbCLmmZ+0r59oMDZZ1UQBMLw9qJ9vnU1Z0ynVgqaGurOAZ4hRfuj70RZjQK3FnCiz0yc8863fuNovsr14Od8+bgRPVKl98Pc2rTKSKyIKEpc2gU/jAlJLuBYi3D3Ec= Original-Received: by 10.67.91.6 with SMTP id t6mr18067887ugl.1168263253560; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 05:34:13 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from chrislap.local ( [89.176.28.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 32sm39285111ugf.2007.01.08.05.34.11; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 05:34:12 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=chrislap.local) by chrislap.local with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H3udc-00013K-7r; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:34:09 +0100 Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Mon\, 08 Jan 2007 00\:33\:37 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dooglus@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:39:09 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on chrislap.local) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:64969 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > So if someone sends me a virus in image format disguised as Emacs Lisp > code, the correct thing to do is to install the virus, rather than > display it safely in Emacs Lisp mode? > > Although I appreciate the help you have given on other occasions, > that doesn't make sarcastic attacks like this one ok. > > Please do not talk to me this way again. That wasn't sarcasm, it was indicating the result of using the magic number in preference to the filename without warning the user. I have tried various ways of trying to explain this risk to you but you don't seem to understand any of them. I thought perhaps a reductio ad absurdum[1] argument might help. Apparently not. I'm sorry you don't like the form of argument I used. Do you have a list of other types of logical argument you find offensive, so I can avoid making a similar mistake again? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_ad_absurdum