Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!boulder!spot!johnsonr
From: johnsonr@spot.Colorado.EDU (Richard Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Overzealouus Disinfectant 2.0/Gatekeeper Aid vs Mac-a-Mug
Message-ID: <23870@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 24 Jul 90 17:37:13 GMT
References: <634@seila.UUCP>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: johnsonr@spot.colorado.edu (Richard Johnson)
Organization: Center for Space Construction, CU Boulder
Lines: 34
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

johnt@seila.UUCP (john grant) writes:

>       I just downloaded Disinfectant 2.0 (mainly to see the About box...)
> but when I ran it it trashed my Mac-a-Mug Demo.

Actually, what you say later indicated that Gatekeeper Aid trashed your
Mac-a-Mug Demo.

>	Specifically when it got to the demo, Gatekeeper Aid complained
> about an Implied Loader

How did Gatekeeper Aid "get" to the demo?

> Configuration:	SE/020, Gatekeeper aid 1.0.1, Disinfectant 2.0.

> Disinfectant 1.6 did not get into this mess, so I am tempted to point
> my finger at the latest release.

I've been using Disinfectant 2.0 with Gatekeeper Aid 1.0.1 on my IIcx
(using System 6.0.4 and 6.0.5) with no problems.  However, I recently
(pre Disinfectant 2.0 release) had an incoming download trashed when
Gatekeeper Aid discovered that it had an implied loader 'CODE' resource.
The download was a Compactor auto-extracting file.  Gatekeeper Aid
trashed it because its file type didn't get set to APPL.  Its file type
wasn't set correctly because White Knight 11.08 didn't have File(Other)
privileged under GateKeeper (White Knight 11.07 did <sheepish grin>).
The protection INITs and other hacks performed exactly as they were
designed to, if not how I wanted them to.

Disinfectant (insert any version here) had nothing to do with the behavior.
 
Richard
johnsonr@spot.colorado.edu
rjohnson@nyx.cs.du.edu