On Feb 7, 2004, at 10:13 PM, James Couzens wrote:
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?
'Poorly audited' simply means that it has not been thoroughly audited.
It doesn't mean that you tried and did a bad job, or that you claimed
otherwise.
If I wanted anyone's opinion regarding
the security of the libspf code, I would consult a professional, not
you.
How do you me from Adam and what my credentials are? Is commentary
regarding potential bugs in libspf not welcome?
Please go mind your own business.
Sure thing.
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?¡