Hi David,
> >And all this was done with the knowledge that there was a live exploit
> >out in the wild for this.
>
> That's the first I've heard of that. Can you support it? As I've said,
> this condition would absolutely tilt my position toward yours.
He is probably referring to the
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 at 5:44pm (-0700), David Talkington wrote:
> Matthew Melvin wrote:
>
> >And all this was done with the knowledge that there was a live exploit
> >out in the wild for this.
>
> That's the first I've heard of that. Can you support it? As I've said,
> this condition would abs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Melvin wrote:
>And all this was done with the knowledge that there was a live exploit
>out in the wild for this.
That's the first I've heard of that. Can you support it? As I've said,
this condition would absolutely tilt my position toward
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 at 8:28am (-0700), David Talkington wrote:
> David Talkington wrote:
>
> >Yes, this definitely could have been handled differently. Especially
> >since they seem to have changed their minds mid-stream after telling
> >people they'd have until Monday to shore up before this a
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 09:28, David Talkington wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Talkington wrote:
>
> >Yes, this definitely could have been handled differently. Especially
> >since they seem to have changed their minds mid-stream after telling
> >people they'd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yes, this definitely could have been handled differently. Especially
since they seem to have changed their minds mid-stream after telling
people they'd have until Monday to shore up before this announcement.
- -d
- -- Forwarded message -
