Patch My PC

[Bear]

Patch My PC is a small portable application that updates third party
applications and Windows updates. It’s critical to keep software up to date
to ensure vulnerabilities are patched. There are currently 56 third party
applications that Patch My PC can silently update, and the list is growing
with each release! Works well on x64 computers.

Outdated software will show in red, Up to date will show in green. If it is
not installed, it will show as black. Patches 56 common third party
products: Reader, Flash, Java, QuickTime and More. There are many optional
updates that can be installed by checking the checkbox in the optional
software panel. Supports silent updates Very small around 350 Kb Scans and
installs Windows updates Windows Tools Feature to quickly uninstall
multiple programs Feature to enable or disable startup programs. Portable.
Size: 350KB. Win XP/Vista/7.

http://www.patchmypc.net/

Video Demo http://goo.gl/KCdUm

--
Bear
http://bearware.info
Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
not-for-mail

[Poutnik]

In article posted 26 May 2012 11:37:35 GMT to alt.comp.freeware,
Bear posted this..

>
> Patch My PC is a small portable application that updates third party

> applications and Windows updates. It?s critical to keep software up to date

> to ensure vulnerabilities are patched. There are currently 56 third party
> applications that Patch My PC can silently update, and the list is growing
> with each release! Works well on x64 computers.
>
> Outdated software will show in red, Up to date will show in green. If it is
> not installed, it will show as black. Patches 56 common third party
> products: Reader, Flash, Java, QuickTime and More. There are many optional
> updates that can be installed by checking the checkbox in the optional
> software panel. Supports silent updates Very small around 350 Kb Scans and
> installs Windows updates Windows Tools Feature to quickly uninstall
> multiple programs Feature to enable or disable startup programs. Portable.
> Size: 350KB. Win XP/Vista/7.
>
> http://www.patchmypc.net/
>
> Video Demo http://goo.gl/KCdUm

I would additionally propose Secunia PSI ( Personal Software inspector
), what I use several years.

http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/personal/

as a product of respected software security site,
that I frequantly use myself professionally
for vulnerability reporting.

http://www.secunia.com



--
Poutnik

[Bear]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
news:MPG.2a2ae4a...@news.eternal-september.org:

I agree and it's been BearWare for quite some time...the best :)

PatchMyPc (also BearWare for some time) is almost as good and may get
better. What I like about it most is it is a single executable portable
stealth program.

[p-0^0-h the cat]

On 26 May 2012 13:47:48 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:

>I agree and it's been BearShit for quite some time...the best :)

More SPAM from ACF's spamming Bear. Fuck your web site.

--
p-0^0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker

[Bear]

p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
news:foa2s79kv5585l3j1...@4ax.com:

> On 26 May 2012 13:47:48 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>>I agree and it's been BearShit for quite some time...the best :)
>
> More SPAM from ACF's spamming Bear. Fuck your web site.
>

Jealous is as jeleaous does: you don't have a web site.

--
Bear
http://bearware.info

[Mike Easter]

Bear wrote:
> Poutnik

>> Bear posted this..

>>> Patch My PC is a small portable application that updates third party
>>> applications and Windows updates. It?s critical to keep software up
>>> to da
>> te
>>> to ensure vulnerabilities are patched. There are currently 56 third
>>> par
>> ty
>>> applications that Patch My PC can silently update, and the list is
>>> growin
>> g
>>> with each release! Works well on x64 computers.

Above:

When Poutnik cites Bear's XNews 78 character lines with MicroPlanet
Gravity Quoted-Printable, lines start breaking into ugly shortlines and
then Bear replies back, it makes an unholy mess of not only 'ugly
shortlines' (embarassing line wraps), but it even breaks words into
pieces. Poutnik's MPG made a mess and Bear's XNews compounded it.

The cited cited Bear par is supposed to look like this if it is properly
rewrapped:

>>> Patch My PC is a small portable application that updates third

>>> party applications and Windows updates. It’s critical to keep
>>> software up to date to ensure vulnerabilities are patched. There
>>> are currently 56 third party applications that Patch My PC can
>>> silently update, and the list is growing with each release!

>>> Works well on x64 computers.

--
Mike Easter

[p-0^0-h the cat]

Er, yes I do. Does that mean I have made it in life?

[Poutnik]

In article posted Sun, 27 May 2012 09:08:37 -0700 to alt.comp.freeware,
Mike Easter posted this..

>
> Bear wrote:
> > Poutnik
> >> Bear posted this..
>
> >>> Patch My PC is a small portable application that updates third party
> >>> applications and Windows updates. It?s critical to keep software up
> >>> to da
> >> te
> >>> to ensure vulnerabilities are patched. There are currently 56 third
> >>> par
> >> ty
> >>> applications that Patch My PC can silently update, and the list is
> >>> growin
> >> g
> >>> with each release! Works well on x64 computers.
>
> Above:
>
> When Poutnik cites Bear's XNews 78 character lines with MicroPlanet
> Gravity Quoted-Printable, lines start breaking into ugly shortlines and
> then Bear replies back, it makes an unholy mess of not only 'ugly
> shortlines' (embarassing line wraps), but it even breaks words into
> pieces. Poutnik's MPG made a mess and Bear's XNews compounded it.

Interesting is I have not noticed such a mess in previous posts.

I may will increase wrapping threshold,
but nobody in last months complained about that.


--
Poutnik

[Mike Easter]

Poutnik wrote:
> Mike Easter

The 'general' problem isn't solved by anyone increasing their wrap
beyond popular ranges.

As a general rule, if you increase your wrap beyond a popular range such
as 72-74, then you actually increase the chances that when someone cites
your post that lines will get broken by the underlying cause.

While you may decrease your chances of breaking someone else's lines,
you increase the chances of someone breaking your lines.

As another general rule, it isn't a good idea to use quoted-printable
because there are so many different ways that QP is implemented that it
should be considered 'unconventional' and only used in one-on-one
exchanges in which the handling of the QP is predictable.

For example OE communicating only with OE could use OE's version of QP,
but OE users shouldn't use QP in conversing with other newsreaders, nor
should Poutnik :-)


--
Mike Easter

[Poutnik]

In article posted Sun, 27 May 2012 11:08:03 -0700 to alt.comp.freeware,
Mike Easter posted this..

>

> The 'general' problem isn't solved by anyone increasing their wrap
> beyond popular ranges.
>
> As a general rule, if you increase your wrap beyond a popular range such
> as 72-74, then you actually increase the chances that when someone cites
> your post that lines will get broken by the underlying cause.

I had previously 72

>

> As another general rule, it isn't a good idea to use quoted-printable
> because there are so many different ways that QP is implemented that it
> should be considered 'unconventional' and only used in one-on-one
> exchanges in which the handling of the QP is predictable.
>
> For example OE communicating only with OE could use OE's version of QP,
> but OE users shouldn't use QP in conversing with other newsreaders, nor
> should Poutnik :-)

Hm, I have always though QP is standadized.
But anyway, I do not have nowhere is Gravity set posting in QP.
And nobody yet complained during years.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article posted Sun, 27 May 2012 11:08:03 -0700 to alt.comp.freeware,
Mike Easter posted this..

> As another general rule, it isn't a good idea to use quoted-printable
> because there are so many different ways that QP is implemented that it
> should be considered 'unconventional' and only used in one-on-one
> exchanges in which the handling of the QP is predictable.
>
> For example OE communicating only with OE could use OE's version of QP,
> but OE users shouldn't use QP in conversing with other newsreaders, nor
> should Poutnik :-)

I have probably got it.

My headers normally show

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

But if there is some 8bit char for whatever reasons
( I do not use them for usenet but by mistake),

the header is

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As I have iso-8859-2 as preferred encoding,
and not allowed 8bit body enconding,
reading somewhere it jas bad support.

If I use 8bit body encoding, the header is

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Is this preferred way ?

Or, is beter to replace ISO-8859-2 by utf-8 ?

--
Poutnik

[Mike Easter]

I am not familiar with what causes your MPGravity to become configured
to generate QP quoted-printable, nor can I advise you about how to
configure it to deal with 8bit, but if I look at the source of your
initial reply to Bear's message in this thread, it is 'disruptive'
(format-wise) even though my reader displayed your QP message OK.

By disruptive I mean that the sequence starting with Bear's 78 character
lines followed by your MPG's handling of those lines with QP which I
understand is 'required' to break lines at 76 besides all of the other
stuff it does differently than plaintext, then we get this unholy mess
in the source which is illustrated in HK Howard Knight's message archive:

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=133819739100

... which shows your QP breaking Bear's lines within words like this
(I'm using an ellipse below to remove the words preceding 'party' to
focus on the broken word):

... par
ty=20

... in numerous places intra-paragraph.

Then, Bear's XNews replying to your MPG's disruption doesn't smooth it
out, but leaves it broken as illustrated in this HK link.

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=133819785800

That is a very very ugly result which is caused by a combination of
agents interacting badly because:

- Bear's lines at 78+ are kinda long
- your agent's use of QP is a bad idea with a terrible effect
- Bear's XNews didn't do a good job of handling your QP
- no one is using optimally implemented format=flowed


--
Mike Easter

[Mike Easter]

Mike Easter wrote:

> Poutnik wrote:

>> If I use 8bit body encoding, the header is
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>
>> Is this preferred way ?
>>
>> Or, is beter to replace ISO-8859-2 by utf-8 ?

For me personally, it doesn't matter, but I consider UTF-8 to be the
more modern way to express lots of characters and to be the way more
people are configured to display extended IANA characters.

The important thing is that the transfer encoding line isn't QP.

> (I'm using an ellipse below

s/ellipse/ellipsis/

I'm using an ellipsis ...

> ... par
> ty=20

... not an oval :-)

--
Mike Easter

[Poutnik]

In article posted Mon, 28 May 2012 07:50:53 -0700 to alt.comp.freeware,
Mike Easter posted this..

>

> Mike Easter wrote:
> > Poutnik wrote:
>
> >> If I use 8bit body encoding, the header is
> >>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >>
> >> Is this preferred way ?
> >>
> >> Or, is beter to replace ISO-8859-2 by utf-8 ?
>
> For me personally, it doesn't matter, but I consider UTF-8 to be the
> more modern way to express lots of characters and to be the way more
> people are configured to display extended IANA characters.
>
> The important thing is that the transfer encoding line isn't QP.

I suppose UTF8 is more modern either, but nntp is rather conservative.
I am afraid I can avoid QP only by 8bit transfer,
what I have now for some time. It seems QP is Gravity hard-coded way
for 7bit transfer of 8bit characters.

It is configurable for binary encoding, but not for text.
Or, I have to check registry non GUI settings.

>
> > (I'm using an ellipse below
>
> s/ellipse/ellipsis/
>
> I'm using an ellipsis ...
>
> > ... par
> > ty=20
>
> ... not an oval :-)

this is not from my post, I did not write about ellipse.

--
Poutnik

[Mike Easter]

Poutnik wrote:
> Mike Easter posted this..
>> Mike Easter wrote:

> I suppose UTF8 is more modern either, but nntp is rather
> conservative. I am afraid I can avoid QP only by 8bit transfer, what
> I have now for some time. It seems QP is Gravity hard-coded way for
> 7bit transfer of 8bit characters.

I'm not sure I understand why/how that happens. That is, I understand
how QP can be used for encoding 8 bit characters but I don't think I
understand what you are explaining in terms of how Gravity configuration
works.

And... I think it would be better if 'we' thereisnowe kept 8 bit
characters out of the/our news headers. It is 'difficult' (more
complicated) for a newsreader to deal with various extended characters
in the header, and consequently it is more likely for the reader to be
confronted with 'wrong' displays of extended characters which appear in
the subject or from.

Of the two choices QP vs MIME encoded word, I think there is greater
consistency and therefore simplicity (less chance for disruption between
agents) in the usage of the MIME encoded word, which employs base64 in
the proper syntax to handle the extended characters.

>>> (I'm using an ellipse below
>>
>> s/ellipse/ellipsis/
>>
>> I'm using an ellipsis ...
>>
>>> ... par
>>> ty=20
>>
>> ... not an oval :-)
>
> this is not from my post, I did not write about ellipse.

I was correcting my own misuse of the term ellipse the oval for ellipsis
the dots :-)


--
Mike Easter

[Poutnik]

In article posted Mon, 28 May 2012 11:23:43 -0700 to alt.comp.freeware,
Mike Easter posted this..

> I'm not sure I understand why/how that happens. That is, I understand
> how QP can be used for encoding 8 bit characters but I don't think I
> understand what you are explaining in terms of how Gravity configuration
> works.

Just in sense Gravity has no explicitr settings for using QP.

>
> And... I think it would be better if 'we' thereisnowe kept 8 bit
> characters out of the/our news headers. It is 'difficult' (more
> complicated) for a newsreader to deal with various extended characters
> in the header, and consequently it is more likely for the reader to be
> confronted with 'wrong' displays of extended characters which appear in
> the subject or from.

I personally do not use any 8bit characters.

>
> Of the two choices QP vs MIME encoded word, I think there is greater
> consistency and therefore simplicity (less chance for disruption between
> agents) in the usage of the MIME encoded word, which employs base64 in
> the proper syntax to handle the extended characters.

No doubts, but that is not an option.
There is option only for binaries, MIME or UUENCODE.

--
Poutnik