On 08/14/2015 07:22 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 13/08/2015 3:03 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >> Again, just because something >> is malformed, does not mean it was created with an evil purpose and >> cannot be proxied as intended, without harm, in some specific environments. >> >> It is pointless to argue about this. You are simply using a different >> definition of "benign". My definition, in this context, is "broken but >> not intended to maim".
> I suspect you are thinking of benevolent/malicious. > > Oxford/Cambridge dictionaries I use list "benign - not causing serious > harm", and/or not *capable* of causing serious harm. Intent does not > enter into it. I am not going to argue regarding the best interpretation of "benign" in this context. I have provided my definition. I am content with you having enough information to know what I mean. If you want to continue debating that there is only one correct way to treat a malformed message, regardless of the circumstances, then I am not going to participate because I have no new arguments to inject in that debate. We will just have to continue to deal with specific cases as they arise without a common framework/agreement. Alex. _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev