Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.4E3A43BC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:42:13 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4E3A43BC" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: automatic update Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 12:26:12 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 458 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4E3A43BC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>> I am thinking about the possibility of a system for using e-mail to >>> implement distributed applications. A "demon" would remove the >>> appropriate messages from the user's inbox and interpret them. (For >>> operating systems that couldn't accomodate this, the user would have = to >>> do something manually to get the message processed.) >>> One possible application would be for automagically updating = TeX/LaTeX. >>> Changes to source files would be propagated, and make files could be >>> invoked to roll new versions, without the user doing anything. >>> Before embarking on such a project, I want to find out if it would = be >>> useful. So, I would like to know how useful you think this = application >>> would be. Nice in theory, but distinct security implications in practice. It is = all too easy to send e-mail masquerading as another user; if the receipt of = such e-mail were to lead to an automatic re-compilation and re-installation, = a virus could be only too easily introduced into every complying TeX = installation in the world. Although I would not want to rule out such a scheme, there must be = adequate provision for authentication of messages, and each site must be able to = elect to apply such updates (a) automatically; (b) after inspection; or (c) = not at all. Philip Taylor ``The University of London at Windsor'' ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4E3A43BC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: automatic update

>>> I am thinking about the possibility of a = system for using e-mail to
>>> implement distributed = applications.  A "demon" would remove the
>>> appropriate messages from the user's = inbox and interpret them.  (For
>>> operating systems that couldn't = accomodate this, the user would have to
>>> do something manually to get the message = processed.)

>>> One possible application would be for = automagically updating TeX/LaTeX.
>>> Changes to source files would be = propagated, and make files could be
>>> invoked to roll new versions, without = the user doing anything.

>>> Before embarking on such a project, I = want to find out if it would be
>>> useful.  So, I would like to know = how useful you think this application
>>> would be.

Nice in theory, but distinct security implications in = practice.  It is all
too easy to send e-mail masquerading as another user; = if the receipt of such
e-mail were to lead to an automatic re-compilation = and re-installation, a
virus could be only too easily introduced into every = complying TeX installation
in the world.

Although I would not want to rule out such a scheme, = there must be adequate
provision for authentication of messages, and each = site must be able to elect
to apply such updates (a) automatically; (b) after = inspection; or (c) not at
all.

        =         =         =         =         Philip = Taylor
        =         =             ``The University of London at = Windsor''

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.4E3A43BC--