* Andreas J. Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-26 05:50]: > I'll assume you didn’t actually mean it the way it came out;) > that you were actually complaining that M:S falls short because > our security model needs *further* action not because M:S has > deficiencies. If M:S has deficiencies, maybe we should address > them now.
Both. M::S as it stands is broken in some ways, but even when it works, the security model is only minimally useful. Reduction of utility due to breakage is not acceptable, but depending on the value of the security model, some breakage can be put up with for some time; reduction of utility due to actual security (say, CPAN.pm requires manual override to install something merely because its author’s key expired) is absolutely acceptable – it’s the *point* of the excercise. That’s what I meant to say. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
