[Mailman-Developers] Re: subscription confirmations
Chuq Von Rospach
Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:04:09 -0700
I've removed mailman-users from the disto. We shhouldn't be using both lists
at the same time in discussions, and this is a developers/design issue.
On 7/16/01 5:38 PM, "Gerald Oskoboiny" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Sure... I agree that it's possible for a standard to be irrelevant
> or just not meet the needs of the users for which it was written.
> But I don't think that is the case here:
But -- you haven't dealt with the safety issue in any substantive way. If
you can't build a standard that protects the user from abuse, I'd argue that
the standard provides a false sense of security that is more destructive
than not standardizing at all; because, as you noted, it'll tend to
encourage developers to write to the standard, and not all of those writers
will really understand the subtler issues involved. So if you can't make GET
safe to automatically browse, even with the blackhats, I'd argue it's better
to not create standards that'd encourage that -- or write the standard in
such a way that these issues and limitations are very clear IN the standard.
> (I would like to back up my "widely followed" claim by doing a
> survey of various popular sites, but don't have time today, and
> probably won't until Friday at the earliest :( Anyway, I am
> fairly confident that is the case.)
I would really like to see this; especially since ignoring the larger issues
with the standard, I'd like to see how people are doing this so make sure
stuff that's done here (and stuff I have in the hopper) do it the best way.
And that means following standards, as long as they make sense. But I still
wouldn't auto-crawl an incoming data stream for links and pull them down
I'm bothered with the larger issues, almost to the point where the initial
problem becomes irrelevant.
> Fetching a URL into my local http cache doesn't cause a virus to
> be executed or anything else bad to happen, and I wouldn't use
> software where that kind of thing would be possible anyway.
No, but it can cause actions you'll regret. You started this by bringing up
one as a problem. Now, however, you're saying "well, that's no big deal".
Which is it? No big deal? Or a problem? And if we can trigger actions you
might or might not like, you can bet it'll honk off others. And if we can
trigger actions, so can others, and those won't necessarily be innocent
ones. So I don't think you can ignore this issue by simply minimizing it's
importance. Either it is, or it isn't, and you can't start making
judgemental calls on individual cases and using that to imply that all cases
are not serious. To me, that's what you've done -- no offense, Gerald, but
it's coming across a bit like you're trying to duck the larger issue, while
still pushing for mailman to 'fix' the problem you're trying to minimize.
> If you think the docs on this subject at W3C are lacking, by all
> means let me know.
No, what I really was hoping for were examples of what W3 (or you) consider
'proper', to see how W3 thinks this ought to be done.
> Somewhat related, W3C recently published a note called "Common
> User Agent Problems" <http://www.w3.org/TR/cuap> and it was
> received quite well by the web community
Off to go read....
> I think there is a plan to write a similar
> one targeted towards site administrators, pointing out common
> mistakes and raising awareness about little-known but important
> RFC/spec details like this.
One of the best things I think W3 could do in these cases is not only to
write "good" "bad", but generate cookbooks of techniques, with explanations
of why they're good, or why they ought to be avoided. Especially in the
subtlties of the standards that might not be intuitively obvious, or which
might be involved in emerging technologies (like wireless) that the typical
designer hasn't had time to worry about yet (or doesn't know to worry
about). I love things like the "Perl Cookbook" of code fragments and
examples, not just because it saves me reinventing the wheel, but it gives
me insight into how things ought to be done, at least in the eyes of my
betters. And if you create a cookbook, people are a lot more likely to adopt
them, since they can borrow the existing code...
> By "Mailman's fault" I meant that if mailman did this, it would
> be the part of the equation causing problems by not abiding by
> the HTTP spec. But this prefetching thing is just an example; the
> main point is that the protocol has this stuff built in for a
> reason, and there may be hundreds of other applications (current
> and future) that need it to be there.
The standards also brought us, um, BLINK. Just because it's there or someone
proposes it doesn't mean we ought to do it that way.
> I'm not worried about abuse, myself;
You should be. Espeecailly if you're building a standard that enables
security problems and encourages programmers to write to allow for those
problems in it.
>> And the more I think about it, the more it's an interesting point -- but on
>> more than one level. Has W3c considered the implications of defining a
>> standard that depends on voluntary acceptance here?
> Which Internet standards *don't* depend on voluntary acceptance?
But there's a difference here -- we're talking about possible security
issues, not just whether someone adopts a tag.
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<firstname.lastname@example.org> = <email@example.com> = <firstname.lastname@example.org>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
95% of being a net.god is sounding persuasive
and convincing people you know what you're talking about, even when you're
making it up as you go along. (chuq von rospach, 1992)