On Thu, 28 May 2009, Bjoern Voigt wrote:
My question is: Are you planning to write a fix or do you plan to accept
a fix for the buffer overflow bug?
I have nothing to do with fixing bugs in UW IMAP, and have had nothing to
do with that for over a year.
There are more serious problems that have discovered in UW IMAP since
development ended a year ago, yet remained unfixed:
http://panda.com/imap
Given this and the fact that UW IMAP is a dead project, I think that it's
pretty silly to worry about this particular issue.
As far as Linux distributions go, I think that they too have more
important things to fix. For example:
I just spent the past 12 hours repeatedly rebooting (via power cycle) a
64-bit Linux system because Ubuntu switched to a new whiz-bang audio
driver that can lock up the CPU.
Numerous applications became slower (in the case of one rendering engine,
three orders of magnitude slower!) in newer versions of Linux because some
pinhead "improved" glibc so that threading mutexes are in place even when
the application is not built to do threading. If you're lucky, the man
pages were updated to tell you about the xxx_unlocked() variants that
don't do these useless mutexes.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
Imap-uw@u.washington.edu
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
