[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package

>>>>> In article <[🔎] 87wuk3m7en.dlv@wanadoo.fr>, Remi VANICAT <vanicat@debian.org> writes:

 > Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes: [...]

 > Yes you are when you say that next time he'll do worse "this boy
 > have stole a candy, we should kill him because next time he'll do
 > worse"

	Once you have demostrated a lack of trustworthiness, we
 should make sure you are not left alone with a whole lot of candy;
 and there should be some consequences. Not just, oh, he's just a
 boy, and will grow out of that phase. 

 >> You want to ignore a denial of service poison pill, and you think
 >> I am being silly?

 > DOS ? Well, micq is an icq client, and the (very stupid)
 > modification made by upstream doesn't make me unable to use icq
 > (well, I'm using gnomeicu...).

	Now you are saying micq has no value (since loss of its
 services was of no consequence). Given 

 > Be serious. The program even give a immediate solution to the
 > problem. (to download the upstream debian package).

	And that is somehow acceptable?

 > I really believe that you are paranoid here.

	Since this concerns the reputation of Debian, and a cleverly
 hidden DOS attack, yes, I am paranoid. I hope you are not in charge
 of security anywhere.

Earth -- mother of the most beautiful women in the universe. Apollo,
"Who Mourns for Adonais?" stardate 3468.1
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: