spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF in MTAs

2004-02-07 20:13:32
On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 18:55, George Schlossnagle wrote:
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?

This became personal when you chose to enter this conversation with
words of an undermining nature.

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.

Your wording "poorly audited" is what I found offensive,  unnecessary,
and without merit.  Its beta code, and as such has not been audited.  In
addition to this, no claims have been made to state otherwise, so why
are you even bringing this up?  If I wanted anyone's opinion regarding
the security of the libspf code, I would consult a professional, not
you.  Please go mind your own business.

Cheers,

James

-- 
James Couzens,
Programmer

Current projects:
http://libspf.org

-------
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_)½§Åv¼ð¦¾Øß´ëù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>