On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 19:21, George Schlossnagle wrote:
'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.
Poorly audited infers that audited has been attempted and or claimed,
and that such auditing has failed or fallen short. I fail to see how it
could be interpreted otherwise. Perhaps you should try alternate
wording.
How do you me from Adam and what my credentials are? Is commentary
regarding potential bugs in libspf not welcome?
Shapiro was out of line with his original post. Firstly, no one
contacted me regarding any such bug. Second to that, no one published
such a comment in the spf-devel list. In addition to both of these
facts, he chose to make a public statement in the discuss list citing an
exploit as the basis for a reason not to integrated into sendmail.
Perhaps you can see why I might be edgy about this topic, since at no
time was I consulted regarding this code oversight, which occurs not
only in beta code, but within debugging which should not be enabled
during production use.
I did not, and will never appreciate someone jumping on the bandwagon in
a conversation in which they have nothing more to contribute than what
can be interpreted as a snide remark regarding the security of the
software in question.
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´ë ù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part