Chris Zakelj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > He said "good and secure". Phpbb is neither. > Perhaps you would like to offer an alternative
Nope. > instead of just dissing the phpBB users? I didn't say anything about any users. > Your definition of "good" is probably different, and phpBB might not > meet it. My definition of good includes secure. "If you are a very low traffic obscure site and only have to worry about publicly released exploits you can patch, and you are willing to patch all the damn time" doesn't qualify as secure. Read the subject again. Adam
