In this particular case I know Spence is running Windows, so change 2) as
suggested below wouldn't apply.  (And normally under unix I would expect
'wa' to be 'wa' with no extension anyway, although it's perfectly legal to
do what you did, Valdis.)

Change 1) seems like the operable solution, if Spence has a cricket bat
handy. :)

Nathan

At 10:41 AM 1/16/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:32:29 EST, Paul Karagianis <[log in to unmask]>  said:
>
> > I was scratching my head wondering what this "running an exe" meant.  It
> > sounds like the complainer thinks wa.exe is running on the clients machine,
> > not the server.  I mean, isn't the WWW server procedure, Apache or
> whatever,
> > itself an exe?
>
>It means some user with more paranoia than clue saw that the four letters '.',
>'e', 'x', 'e' showed up in a URL in that order, adjacent to each other, and
>promptly had a cow.  The security industry calls this an IWF or BWF incident
>(idiot/bozo with firewall), and rank it right up there with complaints like
>'ns1.your.site is portscanning me from port 53' or 'ntp-1.your.site is
>portscanning me from port 123'.
>
>To fix this you have two main choices:
>
>1) Find a baseball bat and do the emotionally satisfying thing. :)
>
>2) Do this:
>
>a) cd ~apache/cgi-bin   (or wherever you keep it)
>b) mv wa.exe wa.cgi
>c) ln -s wa.cgi wa.exe    (for those who have .exe addresses bookmarked)
>d) in ~listserv/go.user, find the line:
>WWW_ARCHIVE_CGI="/cgi-bin/wa.exe"
>
>and change the .exe to .cgi.
>
>Works fine - in fact, it's been called wa.cgi for *ages* at my site.