Microsoft's continued erosion of Navigator's marketshare in the browser area is proof that Netscape probably had no choice in the matter - they didn't jump, they were pushed.

The release of source code is a different matter though. What do Netscape have to gain from this?

Well one thing's for sure, there's going to be a huge groundswell of support in some developer circles. I expect to see Navigator gain the same level of support as those other free "programmer-supported" products I mentioned previously. There's also a very good chance that we'll see a more stable product within 12 months as a result.

The importance of gaining the support of the programmer community should not be underestimated. IBM made this fatal mistake when they launched OS/2 - spending 50 million dollars targeting end-users while at the same time trying to milk developers for over-priced tools and programmer resources.

Microsoft have always understood this and now Netscape do.

The real money is in the provision of server-based products, especially in the Intranet market. Big companies and corporations can end up spending a small fortune on web-servers, mail-servers and the like and that's where Netscape will be focusing its activities in future.

Of course they're not about to move out of the browser market completely, look for a Navigator 5 to arrive probably later this year. It was planned that this would be a "pure Java" product, something which would vastly simplify the support of multiple operating systems and computer types - however there are rumblings that Netscape will back away from their "full-on" Java support - only time will tell I guess.

One thing is for sure, many of those large organisations which switched to Microsoft's browser to save the costs of buying multiple licenses for the Netscape product may now be reconsidering their options - and that's good news for Netscape.

Well it appears that pickings are now getting so lean that they're actually creating new email addresses to send their junk-email to!

Last week I started receiving email from usa.net telling me that I'd been allocated a NEW email address (at usa.net) and that I should make a note of it for future reference. I received this message for each and every address used on both Aardvark and 7am.com. I suspect a lot of other people who have used their email addresses on a Web site have received the same garbage.

This worries me for two reasons.

1. To have the email address removed you must contact usa.net and tell them. This obviously means that you are then a "qualified" candidate for spam. You've just proved that they've got a valid email address and you read your messages.

2. Within a day or so, this new address started receiving junk mail from purveyors of "adult products". Since I've never promoted or even used this new address myself, it is obvious that usa.net or whoever created the account did so with the sole intention of using it for spam delivery.

Another worrying aspect of this whole thing is the number of Net users who may misunderstand the situation and think that the advisory email is from their ISP or some other "official source". Some of these will switch to using this new email address at usa.net in the belief that their original email address has been changed. Remember that novice users find this whole Internet thing very confusing and may not even be aware of how unscrupulous some of these spammers are.

I'd certainly like to hear from anyone else whose been the recipient of this garbage and I've already warned usa.net that unless they remove the accounts concerned and immediately terminate all mail forwarding, I'll be taking legal action on the basis that they are "passing off" their email address as a bona fide part of 7am and representing themselves as an authorised forwarding agent for its email.

The eagle-eyed amongst you will notice that I've now removed all the email addresses from 7am News and the same will soon be the case here at Aardvark. You can still use the previously published addresses but I'll also be replacing them with a contact form. As I said the other week - I suggest you do the same if you've got a Web site.

One of the biggest hurdles to the use of the Net for critical commercial and legal purposes is the difficulty associated with verifying that the sender of an email or visitor at a Web site is who they say they are and the relative insecurity of the transfer of data around the Net. For an example of how easy it is to impersonate someone else, just look at all the junk email people receive with bogus "from" or "reply" addresses.

To overcome these problems, many people are using "keys" which, when used with signing or encryption software, effectively provide an undeniable proof that the sender is who they say they are. These keys become a sort of "electronic passport" and it is absolutely critical that they do not fall into the wrong hands - or the person who steals them can masquerade as you. Imagine the ramifications if they send out a thousand copies of an email containing libelous statements in your name - signed with YOUR digital key as proof of identity.

Now Peter's saying that some of Microsoft's cornerstone Net products, primarily their browser (Internet Explorer) and Web server (IIS) are so fundamentally flawed that they can allow hackers to steal these digital keys from a user's hard disk. He's saying the flaws are so serious that nobody should surf the Web until the holes are fixed - a pretty stern warning!

Of course it's all a matter of risk versus benefit. If you don't have any encryption or personal IDs on your computer and there's nothing else on your hard disk that would result in catastrophic consequences should someone steal it - then surf-on. Those who are surfing the Net from work and whose machines carry sensitive data should perhaps think again.

Peter, why not drop me an email or write us small piece with some more detail, perhaps giving some idea of the degree of risk for the average Net user?