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.
manoj
--
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: