On Feb 7, 2004, at 9:28 PM, James Couzens wrote:
On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 18:10, George Schlossnagle wrote:
I think the point he was trying to make is that the code is poorly
audited.
George,
Please go fuck yourself.
How did this become personal? Do you react this way at your job when
someone points out a problem with code you work on?
libspf is listed as being beta code, and has only been open for public
review for what - 3 weeks? At least one exploit seem to exist in the
code, and it seemed to be turned up by a brief audit. Saying the code
is poorly audited isn't a judgment, it's an observation that code that
hasn't been picked over for a while tends to have problems.
George
// George Schlossnagle
// Postal Engine -- http://www.postalengine.com/
// Ecelerity: fastest MTA on earth
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡