Mark Imbriaco wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
>
> > I guess it depends on what this guy wants to do. The primary point of my
> > message was to ask if it is possible to do what I stated as a workaround
> > to the stateless HTTP problem that Vivek wrote (rather than being a
> > discourse on whether it is truly the most secure solution for the
> > requirements).
>
> In that case, sure it's possible. And fairly trivial to implement at
> that. I am not trying to start an argument of any kind, and I'm pretty
> sure that my first messages wasn't inflammatory, though it appears that
> you may have taken it that way.
>
You're right on all your other accounts. But not trying to start anything, just
wanted to emphasize the primary point of the thread so it didn't get lost. I
guess security stuff does always end up finding its way in web discussion
threads anyway. I guess there is no escaping it. And perhaps maybe there
shouldn't be. :)
Sorry,
Gunther
