From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31550 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2009 00:23:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 31542 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jul 2009 00:23:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from etr-usa.com (HELO etr-usa.com) (130.94.180.135) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:23:29 +0000 Received: (qmail 89108 invoked by uid 13447); 22 Jul 2009 00:23:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [172.20.0.42]) ([71.213.146.87]) (envelope-sender ) by 130.94.180.135 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 Jul 2009 00:23:24 -0000 Message-ID: <4A665BB5.4050601@etr-usa.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:23:00 -0000 From: Warren Young User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Subject: Re: Zone alarm, you have failed me for the first time... and the last. (BLODA news) References: <4A63E16D.2010503@gmail.com> <4A64E479.2000007@etr-usa.com> <4A665996.2060605@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4A665996.2060605@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2009-q3/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 Dave Korn wrote: > Warren Young wrote: >> Dave Korn wrote: >>> Newer versions of ZA don't run on w2k >> Is Win2K still running on old time zone data, or did MS finally cave to >> the pressure to release that patch without requiring a $1000 payment? > > I have no idea. You would know if it did, if you're in an area of the world where the DST rules changed after MS declared "no more patches" for such things. In most of the US, for instance, your system time would have been off by an hour for several weeks during the year for the past two years. If your locale's DST rules did change recently and you didn't notice a time problem, MS must have relented. There was a huge stink over this. >> Expiration is not the same thing as revocation. > > I know. I was suggesting it should be, otherwise there's simply no point > doing it at all. Sure there is. It benefits the CA -- more $$ -- and it benefits the rest of us by encouraging people to keep their certs current. Which cert would you trust more, one where the CA says it was current as of N months ago (N < 12) or one where the CA says it was current 6 years ago when it was first created?