-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 body > contains > n3td3v from > contains > n3td3v
delete message delete from pop server is a good solution in thunderbird to get ride of this FD bug. cheers. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > well for me n3td3v and probably a lot here , you are in the junk > settings because I think most FD list is really pissed off your > international kiddie attitude... > > n3td3v wrote: >>> Sorry to say the n3td3v group involves employees (rogue) who >>> have called for this. You can ringgle and ranggle your poltical >>> point of users within the MS not having enough time scale to >>> promote to a certain issue, but thats complete crap. One reason >>> being the folks within the n3td3v group are actually people >>> from MS, YAHOO, AOL, etc already. The folks at n3td3v group are >>> part of the industry already, for you to put your point across >>> mr Valdis is cool, but the n3td3v group if you hadent realised >>> before is part of a between the major dot coms. >>> >>> On 3/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:12:23 GMT, n3td3v said: >>> >>>> You Microsoft must officially agree that all flaws marked as >>> "Critical" must >>>> have a patch within 7 to 14 days of public disclosure. >>> >>> OK... Nice try. >>> >>> Too bad you didn't add a requirement that the patch actually be >>> *correct*. >>> >>> Also, you're totally overlooking the fact that *sometimes*, >>> fixing a problem requires some major re-architecting - for >>> instance, if an API has to be changed, then *every* caller has >>> to be updated, and quite possibly re-designed, and the changes >>> have an annoying tendency to ripple outward (if subroutine A >>> has a 7th parameter added, then everybody who calls A has to be >>> updated. And it's likely that you'll find routines B, C, and >>> D that have no *idea* what the correct value of the parameter >>> should be, because they don't have access to the data - so now >>> callers of B, C, and D have to pass another parameter that gets >>> passed to A). >>> >>> Any company that will commit to a "must" on this one is nuts. >>> It's a good target, but making it mandatory is just asking >>> companies to ship a half-baked patch that seems to fix the PoC >>> rather than the underlying design flaw. >>> >>> And going back and reviewing the patch history on IE is >>> instructive - more than once, Microsoft has released a patch >>> for a known Javascript flaw, only to find out within a week >>> that a very slight change would make the exploit work again. >>> >>> Is that *really* what you want? It's certainly not what *I* >>> want. Waiting another 3-4 days past your arbitrary 14-day >>> limit for a *good* patch is certainly preferable for those of >>> us who actually have to deal with this stuff for a living, >>> rather than hide out on a Yahoo group. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure >>> - We believe in it. Charter: >>> http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted >>> and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - > We believe in it. Charter: > http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and > sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > __________ NOD32 1.1458 (20060324) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEJn59FJS99fNfR+YRAhklAJ98pTU41bErz0MaNrKjSwOl7Aj1+QCZAXSh RKprp09ZOCSj6gvC3ep40Yc= =iLDC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
