-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mar 5, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Cristóbal Palmer writes:
Even without the original message text a response is a problem.
I agree -- the addresses are too easy to compute and do end up in lists that are sold -- and would support consideration of changing the defaults as proposed.
But not for 2.1.10. Changing 2.1.10 is dumb software engineering and hysterical policy.
You see, as Jo Rhett points out (apparently without understanding), it will have *no noticable effect* in the short run because *the proposed change won't affect existing Mailman installations*, not even those that upgrade to 2.1.10.
So the right thing to do is to get 2.1.10 out the door as is, and get started on 2.2. Then you can even discuss shutting off the feature in *existing* installations and requiring admins of *existing* installations to reactivate the feature if they want it.[1] That would very likely have noticeable effect *much sooner* than the change proposed for 2.1.10, and would be much less disruptive.
Mark's the release manager for 2.1, but FWIW I completely agree with
Stephen about this. What I would suggest though is that this
information be put in a prominent place on the wiki. We have a
security space with nothing substantial in it, so I suggest we put it
here.
http://wiki.list.org/display/SEC/Home
This will get much more publicity and community input than in a README
file. This is something you can do right now <wink>.
We need to get 2.1.10 out and move on. I hope Jo, Cristobal, Ian and
others will help us solve these problems in MM2.2 and 3.0.
- -Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkfPJKcACgkQ2YZpQepbvXGicQCeMN5dv4sutxfUfzvL1FHNzZp1 McAAoIGPH+NOxU+nzOrlzV4egzw8EYtg =d5ci -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----