(no subject)

From: J. Reilink (digiover@dsinet.org)
Date: 10/30/02 

From: "J. Reilink" <digiover@dsinet.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:50:06 +0100

Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
> spamtrap@xivic.prima.de (Wolfgang Schelongowski) writes:
>
>>>There's nothing wrong with use
>>>of the word `binary' when describing a binary.
>>
>>I never said it was. But as long as they don't give us the source from
>>which it is compiled the only way to find out what the binary really
>>does is to disassemble it and ma nually decompile it. The latter is a
>>very timeconsuming operation which only very few programmers can do
>>successfully.
>>
>
> If you go to http://www.descan.net/download.html, select source code and
> enter some email address (a@b.c will do), you can download the source code
> which you can analyse as much as you want. You can compile it and use that one
> instead of provided binaries (you need to provide your own ldb and lpcap
> and change makefile appropriatelly).
>

And what happens to my emailaddress?
IMHO the emailaddress is totaly not needed for this, so this enforces
(correct word?) my spam suspicion.

It's not that I don't support this idea, it's just the way they announce
it. Also, there is no privacy statement and/or disclamer.

Regards, Jan 

-- 
/"\  ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /  No HTML in mail or news!
  X
/ \ 		DSINet: http://www.dsinet.org

Quantcast