Sorry that my previous post was not sufficiently thankful for what we have. I
could not have written Transport::File or Transport::HTTPGateway or the TLS
module. I am happy someone else did, and I know the time and effort is
substantial.
What I am trying to do, is get things working so that I can submit reports and
everyone benefits. In any way that I punished the helpful, please accept my
apologies.
I apologize for any offense I gave. (to Richardo or the overlords... ;-)
Regards,
Wanda B. Anon
Andrew Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 07:27:47AM -0700, Wanda Anon wrote:
> But I have to ask myself, if the developers of this server can't get it used
> by the cpan-tester overlords, why should the developers expect the testers to
> use it? Do the developers have enough trust in the server to run one and
> make it public?
>
> Isn't the server secure? What about taint checks? What about a low privilege
> perl executable for the cgi as part of the documentation? Wouldn't it be
> nicer if the developers stood behind their programming before the users were
> expected to trust it? If the cpan-testers overlords do not trust it, how can
> you expect a dumb user like me to do so?
>
> Not to disparage the programming of this HTTP client and server, but we had
> an email server running at cpan-testers already. This httpgateway module
> would seem to be misnamed; unless cpan-testers accepts HTTP submission, this
> is more like a HTTP proxy to SMTP to CPAN-testers, not the expected HTTP to
> CPAN-testers. You basically now need access to a machine that will mail it
> off for you, but you need both CGI privileges and SMTP privileges, I think.
No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.
-Andy
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
