Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!glacier!busker!f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Budler From: Jim.Budler@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Budler) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Don't post stuff using stuffit Message-ID: <633.2783DEEA@busker.fidonet.org> Date: 30 Dec 90 03:54:17 GMT Sender: ufgate@busker.fidonet.org (newsout1.26) Organization: FidoNet node 1:226/20 - cmhGate UF Gateway, Columbus OH Lines: 97 Reply-To: jimb@silvlis.com In article <40184@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: >In article , vturner@nmsu.EDU (Vaughan Turner) writes... >I agree with the rest of Mr. Turner's comments ... but with respect to this >particular point doubly so. Self-extracting archives are convenient for >other purposes, when one can be reasonably convinced that the recipient >can handle them appropriately, but there are some drawbacks. They are convienent, and they may have drawbacks, but the one you mention below can be easily avoided. > >First, the "Self-Extracting Archive" puts the user at the mercy of viri >present in the dearchived file. Even if virus checking was incorporated >in the 'self-extracting' or 'auto-unstuffing' portion of the archive, >it can only be as 'up-to-date' as is virus knowledge at the time the >archive is created. Any archive puts you potentially at the mercy of virus in the archive. And I think the current (Stuffit Deluxe 1.0) method of virus checking is inadequate. Why?, cause it's too old. Updates are too infrequent. >StuffIt Classic, (and Deluxe), on the other hand, include virus checking >during dearchiving that can be updated with new versions of the software. Not often enough. >If a self-extracting archive contains a virus unknown at the time of >archiving, it creates an on-going pain in the ass. Then open it with the Archive tool itself, not the self extractor. >It is not my intention to fan the Compactor vs. StuffIt flames -- I think >that self-unstuffers created by StuffIt are equally inappropriate for >net distribution. This may be true, I have no fully formed opinions on that. But your reason isn't valid, since the archive program can be used. Better just to ask if it's worth the extra 10-12k per archive. I'm still not sure your right but at least it's a valid arguing point. > I like to have complete control over the dearchiving >process -- .cpt archives do this as well as .sit archives. Then use Compactor to dearchive compactor sea archives and Stuffit to dearchive stuffit self extractors. > Moreover, >Bill Goodman can (and probably should) include virus checking in a new >release of Compactor. I'm not sure I agree. Given that I think about 3 new virus have appeared since Stuffit Deluxe 1.0 came out, I prefer trusting GateKeeper, or Disinfectant, or SAM. When (if) the archiver is adaptable, like Virus Detective or SAM II, or updated as frequently as Disinfectant, I might trust the virus checking in the archiver. Meanwhile I have the others, and don't feel the need for it in the archiver at all. >The same topic has gotten alot of net.air.play in the ibm-pc groups, >in which many posters have warned that self-extracting-archives make >for particularly rapid and unwitting spread of viri. Are these Orange to Orange comparisons?: Do the PC'ers self extractors allow for dearchiving with the regular archive tools? Do the PC'ers have TSR's (Mac: INITs, UNIX: daemons) which watch for virus? >My $0.02 ... > >Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) And now you have mine. jim -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com I Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 I MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 I owner + Organization: Silvar-Lisco, Inc. -- Jim Budler - via FidoNet node 1:105/14 UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!Jim.Budler INTERNET: Jim.Budler@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG