"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote: > > Yes, it's a veto to introduce a security hole as a 'starting point' that > someone might get around to cleaning up later.
demonstrate that it is a security hole in the server. if you cannot demonstrate that this opens the server to client-side attack, i do not regard the above as a valid technical justification, and do not recognise the veto. vetos require technical justification, not opinion. show me that this opens the server to attack, and i'm there.
